RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (Full Version)

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



Message

spence -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 9:24:26 AM)

quote:

If he's off in the vast pacific between teh US west coast and Hawaii, they'll be very low.


This is the worst case of Glenn survivability. So far in a PBEM my opp (Japan) has had a sub with a Glenn a few hexes out of San Francisco for the last 2 months. They have conducted daily search missions all that time and none have been lost to operational causes nor have they been intercepted by the CAP over San Francisco (which they scout regularly). From first hand experience seaplanes experience A LOT of structural stress taking off and landing on water; even relatively calm sheltered water.
Though I imagine the sub could replace the left handed twizzle stick or some such on a Glenn there is no way that truly decent maintenance could be accomplished on a submarine on the high seas. There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc; and real life always works so that the thing that breaks is the thing that you have no spares of. Reading the TROMs on Combined Fleet.com it surely seems that once a Glenn (if embarked at all) got damaged that was the end of its usefulness.

quote:

A Glen was the only Axis plane to bomb the continental United States during the war


OK let them do bombing of ports, airfields and cities as well as recon. I only find their ability to repeatedly launch and recover without wearing out on the high seas to be objectionable.



el cid again -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 2:34:21 PM)

quote:

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...


Too drastic for me - Glens managed recon PRE and POST Pearl Harbor attack for example - nevertheless you are quite correct: the Glen is too powerful. One problem is its durability is grossly overstated - it is stronger than an E13 for example - and its altitude is too great - and other similar things. So one solution is to simply give it the correct values.

But that is not enough: the Glen could not fly in all weather conditions. So the rule number 2 is a good idea - except maybe hard to play - and also not restrictive enough. How about a die roll? A real die roll - you do have a die right? Since weather is average over an area - we might just ignore the weather on the map and die roll for local conditions only. In that case you have to roll a 9 to fly. IF you fly in clear weather zones only (meaning you check every glen for where it is re weather) - then you have to roll a 7, 8 or 9 to fly.




el cid again -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 2:37:09 PM)

quote:

There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc;


Actually, IJN was the best operator of aircraft from submarines. Not entirely surprisingly, this is related to spare parts. The big subs carried an ENTIRE EXTRA plane as spare parts - all of them - they could build a plane from them. The regular subs with Glens carried a respectable number of spares - and the plane crew included a mechanic - who also flew as observer most of the time (unless the Glen carried bombs - as it did over Oregon).



Charles2222 -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 2:58:07 PM)

Yes, some of the IJN subs were enormous and easier to detect for a reason.



bradfordkay -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 6:51:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

If he's off in the vast pacific between teh US west coast and Hawaii, they'll be very low.


This is the worst case of Glenn survivability. So far in a PBEM my opp (Japan) has had a sub with a Glenn a few hexes out of San Francisco for the last 2 months. They have conducted daily search missions all that time and none have been lost to operational causes nor have they been intercepted by the CAP over San Francisco (which they scout regularly). From first hand experience seaplanes experience A LOT of structural stress taking off and landing on water; even relatively calm sheltered water.
Though I imagine the sub could replace the left handed twizzle stick or some such on a Glenn there is no way that truly decent maintenance could be accomplished on a submarine on the high seas. There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc; and real life always works so that the thing that breaks is the thing that you have no spares of. Reading the TROMs on Combined Fleet.com it surely seems that once a Glenn (if embarked at all) got damaged that was the end of its usefulness.





You might note that my post differentiated between Operational losses (which I think should maybe be a bit higher for sub launched floatplanes) and combat losses. It was the latter that I said should be much lower in the vastness of the open sea, as opposed to losses over port areas.



Mike Solli -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 7:12:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)[:D]

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...


I love the Glen. It gives my opponent ulcers.[:D]



denisonh -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 7:18:59 PM)

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.



Oznoyng -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 8:33:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon


One of my opponents (my brother) and I have been discussing the IJN Glen equipped subs. These subs using naval search in the game give the Japanese player a strategic intelligence advantage over the Allied player. This seems completely at odds with the historical strategic intelligence situation.

In that light we have been discussing house rules to limit the air search capabilities of these subs. I thought the input of the community would be helpful in hammering something out. So far we have two ideas and welcome comments and suggestions on these or other house rule options.

1. Sub based Glens can only conduct naval search when stationed in coastal and atoll hexes. Recon flights can be made from any hex.

2.Only 2 Glens based on subs can conduct naval searches in one turn and only in clear weather zones.

These rules are ether or, both would not be used.

Thanks in advance for your ideas and opinions.


From an historical perspective, the Glen is overrated in the game. I would agree that some limits need to be placed upon it. I think the agreement to reduce operations to coastal and atoll hexes or in hexes with a "clear" weather prediction is appropriate. The number of sorties should not be restricted to 2 though.

As an additional option, I would be sorely tempted to reduce the durability of the plane drastically so that ops losses on patrol approximated the losses that would be received IRL. I would also probably reduce the radius of action to 2 or 3 by reducing the endurance.

Putting the plane up in clear skies and calm seas or in a protected bay should be possible on a fairly regular basis. Those aircraft did not consume huge amounts of fuel and as long as operations were conducted in calm conditions with a relatively small action radius, then the Glen had enough fuel for plenty of sorties. It was a small plane, with a small engine, and likely did not burn excessive amounts of fuel. There are records of Glens making repeated recon flights from the same sub on a single patrol.



Feinder -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 8:48:13 PM)

There are plenty of things you could do to improve the historical accuracy of WitP, "tweaking" the mission constraints (or whatever) for Glens could be one of them.

But to be perfectly frank, the Glen isn't worth worrying about. It's not a game breaker. Yes, it's annoying that he sorta "snoop" Noumea to see if that damaged CV went there, or to Aukland. But over-all, the quality of the intel from the Glen is marginal at best, and it might just as likely report that a CA is parked there.

As a mostly Allied player, I rather find that when Japan uses them as "tripwires" to be rather clever. I don't mind it at all.

Whatever.

To each his own.

But it's far more likely that the Allied player will simply make a mistake that had a crucial impact on your game; than for your Glen subs to actually spot the Allied CVs, and then you happen to set up the ambush and win a complete victory.

Glens are fun little toys. But for play "balance" purposes (seems that's what your indicating), they're not half the threat, and certainly not worth the effort that many folks put into restricting them.

But if you want to play closer to "historical accuracy" create all the house rules you like.

-F-



IS2m -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 8:53:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady



Seams to me most glens get shot down fairly easly, rendering the subs that cary them and only one "sol" and far from home. Also a lot of the time the single plane misses convoys entirely that are withen it's operational patrole zone. Any sightings it makes are realy lucky ones.

Thier are several examples of their use to recon objectives priour to atacks made by Japan, many of which were not even noticed by the Allies.

And as stated by many before and shurley many to come, if you use a tool in the game in maner inconsistant with how it was used during the war your going to get results that are inconsistant with history. Thier are so many things that are so whacked in this game that this pales to insignafagance, being far closer to reality than many other aspects in terms of use and capabalitys.




During my now-abandoned game against YamatoHugger, I only succeeded in bringing down one Glen in 2 or 3 months.

Glens were routinely recceing every important base from LA to Calcutta. The straits between Australia and Tasmania were under observation, as were other important narrows. I had a ftr squadron at each base under observation, and several ASW groups looking for Glen boats. I tried changing the altitude of my fighters on a regular basis, but the little buggers always got through.

I don't really have a problem with Glens, except that they are very hard to catch. I realize that they will occasionally be able to slip into a place undetected, but they routinely made fools of the pilots who were specifically sent after them.

PS: Does anyone know what happened to YH? He just dropped off the face of the earth.





Mike Solli -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 9:28:43 PM)

I usually lose 1 Glen or so every few months as an op loss. I've noticed that they don't get pulled out of my pool when a new sub is built. Anyone know if this is a glitch?



Terminus -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 10:04:15 PM)

New Glen-carrying subs come from the factory with a Glen. They don't check ze pool first...



Mike Solli -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/28/2006 10:08:55 PM)

Geez, I have 33 Glens in my pool. That's enough for the rest of the war.[X(]



Mike Scholl -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 4:33:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)[:D]

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...

Rule #3 works for me...


I agree. The US got 100 times more information, and much more usefull information at that, from code breaking than the Japanese EVER got from Glens or any other sub-launched A/C (Midway alone proves that). That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?



tsimmonds -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 4:45:32 AM)

quote:

So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]



Sonny -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 4:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.



Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]



pasternakski -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 5:19:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]

Umm, I think the man meant eliminate them in the interests of historicity.

Checkers ain't fair. One side always goes first...



denisonh -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 5:41:36 AM)

I didn't think you had a problem with it, as I had heard no complaints until now........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.



Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]




33Vyper -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 5:54:19 AM)

So I guess now is not the time to say I wany my Glens to be able to bomb the Panama Canal and San Francisco. [;)]


:::::fleeing from the building::::::



Mike Solli -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 6:07:55 AM)

[:D]



Nomad -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 6:33:43 AM)

I have a game as Allies that is up to March 15, 1942. I would like to show you the Glenn loses so far, but there have been none. That in spite of my opponent using them to scout out all the WC bases, the HI, all the ports in Australia, the ports in India, Ceylon, etc. etc. etc. Many Glenns have spotted TFs between the WC and HI so they are flying from mid ocean points. I would have to agree that the ops losses are a bit low. this is a Nik 5.02 game using ABs map( senario moded by AB for his map), started with 1.795 and upgraded to 1.8.



Brady -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 8:17:13 AM)

Of all the things to want to tweak, this is prety funny, Given all the Big things that coudl realy use some tweaking, Like PT boats, 4 engine Bombers, P-38's,The Ato A model, I mean god the list is huge and this is a subject for concern?

Thier are these TROM's one can go over that show a lot of interesting stuff about the Glen:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-9.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I10.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-11.htm

Thier is whole lota evidance of use and a bunch of sorties on the same patrole for these Subs.








DFalcon -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 9:10:15 AM)


I am mostly interested in what will make the game better for me to play. I think the game would play better with a less capable Glen. More cat and mouse and a better representation of relative intellegence information.

Doing this requires no code changes. I can limit my use of the Glen with out it. I think keeping my self to a couple of recon flights a turn and no naval search is a good limit.



pauk -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 10:40:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?


Greetings.... i do not think that Allied intel is joke. Apart from radio interceptions, Allies do get important info from:

1. "red cross" shown at base every time when Jap player move ac there (combined with air balance and you get more than clear picture what he move in the base and that is extremely important data!)... Allied player play after Japan player and... voilaaaa!

2. moving cursor to HI bases, you can see if Japs keep capitol ships in the ports. I'm not sure about the second, and would like if someone correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that is possible. (i do not play Allies)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


Japanese CVs spotted in Tokyo Harbour....my b-17 will pay a visit there[:D]



Nice intel - how did you managed to get this info - air recon, by subs or something else?




just move the cursor on Tokyo Base.
I think it's related with the high intelligence allied capacity....or maybe it's just because of the Catalinas...do not know.


[image]local://upfiles/4162/A2822818A40143A89643FFD98CCCDB9E.jpg[/image]



so in general Allied intel is not that bad as players think, IMHO.



Terminus -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 11:08:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]


Just for the record, I didn't eliminate the Glens and their carriers in the name of "fairness". I did it to simulate the Japanese going a similar way with the sub-carried floatplane that the USN did: tried it, couldn't get it to work well enough, dropped it again...



Terminus -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 11:10:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

so in general Allied intel is not that bad as players think, IMHO.


The problem is that the intelligence picture might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. You can't trust it implicitly; it's a crap shoot, like it should be.



ChezDaJez -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 11:19:57 AM)

quote:

I did it to simulate the Japanese going a similar way with the sub-carried floatplane that the USN did: tried it, couldn't get it to work well enough, dropped it again...


Well it would seem that it worked well enough on at least one occasion. According to the I-10 TROM in Brady's link, the I-10's float plane was responsbile for reconnoitering Diego Suarez in Madagascar and relayed a sighting report indicating it had spotted the Ramillies. At least one midget sub launched from other subs in company with I-10 then severely damaged Ramillies and sank a tanker.

This is not to say Glenns aren't overly used in WitP. Simply to say that they could be and were effective on occasion. I don't think the Japanese player should be denied a historicaly weapon simply because its misused in the game. I do favor using weather to determine whether Glenns could launch or not.

According to the links Brady posted, only one Glenn was lost due to unknown causes. Granted its only 3 boats but still they were operational for a fairly long period of time and appear to have used them rather extensively.

Chez



pauk -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 11:23:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The problem is that the intelligence picture might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. You can't trust it implicitly; it's a crap shoot, like it should be.


Yes, but IIRC, hawker had CVs in Tokyo indeed... anyway, the player who base his strategy on intel exclusivly is doomed (as he should be).



Sonny -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 12:35:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I didn't think you had a problem with it, as I had heard no complaints until now........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.



Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]




Nah, Its part of the game. No problem.[8D]



el cid again -> RE: The all seeing eye of Glen (4/29/2006 1:08:53 PM)

quote:

The US got 100 times more information, and much more usefull information at that, from code breaking than the Japanese EVER got from Glens or any other sub-launched A/C (Midway alone proves that). That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?


Different subject. Japan got data from radio intel too. They had a "black chamber" at Guemas Mexico that picked up signals from the Gulf as well as the West coast areas. Japan got better data from spies than we did - although we had some good Korean ones and fair Chinese ones. This is not in the game either. Japanese Prime Ministers got regular - and accurate - reports on the Manhattan Project throughout the war - and the Japanese bomb design is so similar to Little Boy it is hard to tell if it is just because that is fairly obvious - or a copy? [It was not too obvious: BOTH our first generation bomb designs FAILED. Little Boy was a cut down version of Tall Man - a gun all right - based on a 3 inch AA gun - but for Plutonium - which won't work almost every time. Germany also appears to have bet on a Plutonium Gun - with the same problem. Japan's bomb also uses a 3 inch AA gun. But there was this problem with fuel supply: there is not much uranium in areas available to Japan. And - as usual - Japan had mixed priorities - I am up to five different atomic programs by two different services - not a single unified effort. Not all were even trying for a bomb: IJN authorized its first program to produce an engine "for battleships and large land industrial facilities" while IJA authorized its first program to propel airplanes - something we spent about 5 billion dollars on (if you count both missiles and airplanes) after the war (and got none that worked - but a power source we use in space).]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1