quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hey guys. I'm not sure if my opinion means s--t these days but I don't think ASW is that far off.....aside from the fact that there does not seem to be a chance of evasion of torps for targetted ships. Torpedoeing PTs and DDs etc should be a difficult endeavour, yet...."Blammo!"

That and DC penetrations, thoufg few right now, should be alot mor damaging given their lack of frequency...IMO. In lieu of the fact that theredoes not seem to be any chance of actually forcing asub to he surface in combat.

Regarding air asw, not alot of kills should be made because, seriously, how many subs are on the surfaace in daylight in enemy waters? Simply reducing the chance of attack through air patrols would be in order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Japanese ASW took a dramatic turn for the better in my game not too long ago.

In 1941 and 1942, the Japanese sank five Allied subs.

In the first five months of 1943, the Japanese have sunk six American subs and have damaged many more.

ASW attacks were rare before the recent patch or hot fix changed things, but they are common now.  As you guys move into late '42 and '43 I think you'll find the same thing.  Japanse ASW is too potent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In the first five months of 1943, the Japanese have sunk six American subs and have damaged many more.

ASW attacks were rare before the recent patch or hot fix changed things, but they are common now.  As you guys move into late '42 and '43 I think you'll find the same thing.  Japanse ASW is too potent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Forty-two American subs were sunk in the Pacific in World War II to all causes.  Of that number, 25 or 26 were attributed to surface vessels or unknown causes. Based upon what I've seen through the first five months of '43, Allied losses to surface vessels will be much higher.  I do know this - the effectiveness of Japanese ASW changed dramatically after one of the recent patches or hot fixes. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Forty-two American subs were sunk in the Pacific in World War II to all causes.  Of that number, 25 or 26 were attributed to surface vessels or unknown causes. Based upon what I've seen through the first five months of '43, Allied losses to surface vessels will be much higher.  I do know this - the effectiveness of Japanese ASW changed dramatically after one of the recent patches or hot fixes. 

Sources I get say 48 in the PTO, two Atlantic, and two to accidents in training. Fifty-two total.

http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Forty-two American subs were sunk in the Pacific in World War II to all causes.  Of that number, 25 or 26 were attributed to surface vessels or unknown causes. Based upon what I've seen through the first five months of '43, Allied losses to surface vessels will be much higher.  I do know this - the effectiveness of Japanese ASW changed dramatically after one of the recent patches or hot fixes. 

Sources I get say 48 in the PTO, two Atlantic, and two to accidents in training. Fifty-two total.
http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm

Plus add perhaps half a dozen Dutch/British subs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The problem here is that there is zero comparison. This is apples and oranges comparing the historical results against a player that already knows what to do to fix the problem day 1.

quote:

How many did the Allies lose in the pacific? Seems pretty realistic to me.

quote:

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I think ASW is much more realistic in AE than in stock WitP.
In real life doctrine was the decisive factor regarding both how Japan defended against enemy subs and deployed their own boats.

Playing as Japan I've seen my subs taken a beating quite a few times already after only 3 months of war, true mines have sunk most of them but US asw wasn't truly great in 42 as mentioned before.

If you effectively manage both your offensive and defensive dispositions in AE related to subs and ASW it will make a great difference. Both sides need to train their ac in the ASW role, deploy convoy systems and escort their ships. Sending out unescorted ships is really dangerous and I expect the US subs to become a great menace when reliable torpedoes and radar comes into play.

True, Jap subs are effective; maybe the react feature got something to do with it?
- With reduced react range of 1 this has changed a bit I feel. Still, Jap subs achieved some great successes against US warships during WWII; if they had concentrated on merchant ships and convoys they would undoubtedly have achieved more - but this is again doctrine which the individual player now can invent himself.

My 2c is that I will have to play into 43-44 before I come with any further remarks about sub / asw capabilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I do think that the number of attacks on escorts seems kinda odd. I also think that the one big handicap-the 800 lb. gorilla-that has gotten short shrift here is the Mk 14. The Japanese player is allowed to be aggressive as hell doctrinally and this pays in spades with larger numbers of sinkings. The Allied player (particularly USN) can be as aggressive as they want, but it doesn't matter because the Mk. 14 will handcuff allied success until 1943.

A more fair 'apples to apples' comparison would be with the 'faulty torpedoes' switch turned OFF for allies. This would lead to quite a bit of howling from IJ players though...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Well, that does beg the question, of course, Mr Diehl. In our portion of the game philosophy, we made an attempt to give everyone as close to a historical tool kit, as humanly possible, and let the player determine how to use those tools. There’s really no way to build training and doctrinal impedimenta into the system – not unless you want to tack a few zeros onto the cost, so it has to be open ended, in game terms, to work at all.

In a CPX environment, where players are limited to a doctrinal utilization, things work pretty much like they are supposed to. Conversely, a good player, with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, will find some creative uses for those same tools.

Guess what I’m saying is that deviations from training and doctrine are anticipated and not unexpected. Hopefully, the opponent will also deviate in an effective manner. This is, after all, the point of the whole thing, yeah?

btw, I ain't yankin' your chain, bro, just trying to explain and pose the question.

quote:

geduld meine freunde, bitte

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

Wow, this is an inaccurate summary.

In my game with Miller, I started off with the same tactic that worked in WitP and that was used in the war - scattered, small TFs. When those TFs began getting clobbered, I switched to rear bases and began using large, escorted convoys. That's when some tweaks were made by the developers (patches) and mayhem broke loose - I started loosing ridiculous numbers of escorts (including DDs) and I was losing dozens of ships in large, mined ports that were patroled by ASW aircraft and TFs. Miller has acknowledged that his subs have been on "steroids" in this game. What else am I supposed to do? I even stood down every transport on the map for about a month at one point in the game. So what was my flawed strategy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

Wow, this is an inaccurate summary.

In my game with Miller, I started off with the same tactic that worked in WitP and that was used in the war - scattered, small TFs. When those TFs began getting clobbered, I switched to rear bases and began using large, escorted convoys. That's when some tweaks were made by the developers (patches) and mayhem broke loose - I started loosing ridiculous numbers of escorts (including DDs) and I was losing dozens of ships in large, mined ports that were patroled by ASW aircraft and TFs. Miller has acknowledged that his subs have been on "steroids" in this game. What else am I supposed to do? I even stood down every transport on the map for about a month at one point in the game. So what was my flawed strategy?

Sorry you feel that way.

"I think Dan's(Canoerebel) early tactics were faulty, he was sending out lots of little TFs that did not have any escorts....sitting ducks for my subs. I am still seeing attacks whereby I hit a transport but there is no ASW counter-attack, not even a "xx fails to locate sub" message, so I'm not sure if he is still using this strategy in quiet areas."

Miller's summary of your failure to escort your TFs until months into the war sounds like this cost you months of heavy losses. You've briefly alluded to this in your AAR as well, amidst more general and prolific complaints of the subwar in AE. For whatever reason, your mileage really has varied from most.

When those packets 'began getting clobbered' did you adopt a different tactic quickly or carry on for months of two day turns before changing? Perhaps I misread your AAR and Miller's summary-both suggested considerable delay before you changed. Miller was absolutely right in gutting your fleet for as long as he could with his available tools.

Have you heard of another player that stuck with this unescorted strategy as long as you did and lost as many ships as you did before switching tactics?

Sorry if this sounds judgemental or harsh, Canoerebel. I respect your gameplay and enjoy your AAR, but respectfully submit that you may not be in the most objective position to advise re:effective ASW tactics in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I still think all of this can be accounted for simply because Japanese players have the 60+ years of hindsight and analysis that tells us what the Japanese did historically was a colossal blunder. So we don't make that blunder.