quote:

ORIGINAL: rogue

Ok, I am back and posting again. This is a great community that is really helpful. I know that leaders are important in this game and I have read about people "firing" those that do not perform well. How can you tell a good leader from a bad leader? I know aircraft squadrons have leaders divided into Best for Fighter and Best for Bomber and sometimes you will see fighters leading bomber or vice versa. Other than something that obvious, how can you tell if leadership is the factor for poor performance? I just figure that under the hood the game is simply rolling dice (I can only imagine how long the equation must be sometimes, [X(]) and I either get lucky or I don't. So I am not sure when I am unlucky or have a bad leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Just an example:
If you have a sub that refuses constantly to attack any enemy ship that passes through its controlled hex...check the crew stats. If the stats aren't so bad take an eye on the leader...you'll probably see that he's very "shy" and not aggressive enough or he's not best suited to command a sub,...fire him and get a more aggressive leader and you'll prob see more often the sub attacking!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Just an example:
If you have a sub that refuses constantly to attack any enemy ship that passes through its controlled hex...check the crew stats. If the stats aren't so bad take an eye on the leader...you'll probably see that he's very "shy" and not aggressive enough or he's not best suited to command a sub,...fire him and get a more aggressive leader and you'll prob see more often the sub attacking!

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

You mean put them in TF together?Wolfpack thingie?Does that work for Japanese subs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

You mean put them in TF together?Wolfpack thingie?Does that work for Japanese subs?

Wolfpacks don't work in the game... [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

You mean put them in TF together?Wolfpack thingie?Does that work for Japanese subs?

Wolfpacks don't work in the game... [:(]

Except for transport and minelaying......

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I agree, most of the time. As the Japanese player, I like to group my subs and have 1-2 be Glen carrying sub and the rest (2-4) non-Glen carrying subs. I'd rather have the Glen carrying subs not attack (don't want to risk them). I put "shy" captains in them and aggressive captains in the subs I want to attack.

You mean put them in TF together?Wolfpack thingie?Does that work for Japanese subs?

• They increase the chance of the subs detecting the enemy
  
• They increase the chance of the enemy detectng the subs
  
• The Subs will only get off one shot anyway

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

I was under that impresion also, that is why I ask. Perhaps he meant grouping them in the same area, not in the same TF... 

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Wolfpacks do work in the game.  They just work aren't a good idea and provide a net disadvantage.

• They increase the chance of the subs detecting the enemy
  
• They increase the chance of the enemy detectng the subs
  
• The Subs will only get off one shot anyway

This is doctrinally and historically correct.  Admiral Doenitz ran the Wolfpack system becuase he believed that highly coordinated attacks would increase damage to Allied convoys and he was a control freak.  Early in the war, it was effective in the Atlantic, but it ultimately became the downfall of the German U-Boat Service (Note: the majority of people who served on German U-Boats did not survive the war).

The Wolfpacks used radio communications to coordinate their attack.  This meant that the U-boats had to operate from the surface as much as possible.  This exposed them to Allied Radio Direction Finding and Allied Radar, both of which the German's did not know they were up against until late in the war.

Additionally, the daily communications containing orders to the U-Boats were intercepted and decoded in Blechley Park using Ultra.  As a result, the Allies easily directed Hunter-Killer groups and aircraft to the Wolfpack areas of operation and directed convoys to avoid them.  By late 1942, the Wolfpack's became the hunted rather than the hunter.

In the Pacific, submarines had to operate independently.  The distances were too vast and communication was unreliable.  Generally, they could only communicate to base using shortwave because the distances were too great to fly planes for relay.  As a result both the Japanese and Allied submarine forces were not centrally coordinated during operations.

In fact, it would probably be more realistic if players were only allowed to issue orders to submarines in port and computer control woule determine how much the skipper would deviate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf

I was under that impresion also, that is why I ask. Perhaps he meant grouping them in the same area, not in the same TF...

in the game if you want something "similar" to a Wolfpack use 6 subs and place them in hexes next to each other... this is how my "Wolfpacks" are looking like

quote:

In the Pacific, submarines had to operate independently. The distances were too vast and communication was unreliable. Generally, they could only communicate to base using shortwave because the distances were too great to fly planes for relay. As a result both the Japanese and Allied submarine forces were not centrally coordinated during operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Wolfpacks do work in the game.  They just work aren't a good idea and provide a net disadvantage.

• They increase the chance of the subs detecting the enemy
  
• They increase the chance of the enemy detectng the subs
  
• The Subs will only get off one shot anyway

This is doctrinally and historically correct.  Admiral Doenitz ran the Wolfpack system becuase he believed that highly coordinated attacks would increase damage to Allied convoys and he was a control freak.  Early in the war, it was effective in the Atlantic, but it ultimately became the downfall of the German U-Boat Service (Note: the majority of people who served on German U-Boats did not survive the war).

The Wolfpacks used radio communications to coordinate their attack.  This meant that the U-boats had to operate from the surface as much as possible.  This exposed them to Allied Radio Direction Finding and Allied Radar, both of which the German's did not know they were up against until late in the war.

Additionally, the daily communications containing orders to the U-Boats were intercepted and decoded in Blechley Park using Ultra.  As a result, the Allies easily directed Hunter-Killer groups and aircraft to the Wolfpack areas of operation and directed convoys to avoid them.  By late 1942, the Wolfpack's became the hunted rather than the hunter.

In the Pacific, submarines had to operate independently.  The distances were too vast and communication was unreliable.  Generally, they could only communicate to base using shortwave because the distances were too great to fly planes for relay.  As a result both the Japanese and Allied submarine forces were not centrally coordinated during operations.

In fact, it would probably be more realistic if players were only allowed to issue orders to submarines in port and computer control woule determine how much the skipper would deviate.

German U-boats operated mostly on the surface, no matter if operating in a Wolfpack or alone. Most attacks were done at night - on the surface...