About ASW (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

CyrusSpitama -> About ASW (4/8/2011 10:22:45 PM)

Still struggling with handling ASW properly and hoping for some feedback to adjust my tactics. Here is what I am currently doing to handle ASW.

Placing some Betties, Nells, and any local float planes on ASW patrols. I put them at low altitudes (100 feet). Gathering SCs and PBs in task forces of 2-3 ships and ASW patrol orders. I do 2 ships per TF if their ASW is > 4 and 3 ships if < 4 . Overlap the patrol areas in choke points and try to get them within one hex of each other in non-choke locations.

Is there anything else I can be doing to help with this? I seem to be detecting a fair number of subs but, so far I have only sunk 3 subs and had multiple *false sinkings* reported. Is it just because I haven't gotten to the better tech like radar and such? I have only gotten to late 42 so far so, I have not really seen the super-Es I have seen discussed on the forums as of yet.

P.S. So far the most brutal areas have been just below Tokyo and near Pescadores.



Capt Hornblower -> RE: About ASW (4/8/2011 10:50:20 PM)

Firstly, if you have FOG OF WAR on, you may actually have sunk more than 3 subs, as it's possible others haven't yet shown up on your SUNK SHIPS report.

Secondly, how many US subs do you think you should be sinking? IRL, the US sub fleet virtually throttled the Japanese supply lines. From what I've read in these forums, that NEVER happens in this game. Japanese ASW seems to be greatly overrated in AE, so you should probably be happy with the results you ARE getting.

(JFBs make me nuts!)



Capt Hornblower -> RE: About ASW (4/8/2011 10:52:11 PM)

Thirdly, your tactics seem sound to me. Now, it's all just a matter of crew quality and equipment.



CyrusSpitama -> RE: About ASW (4/8/2011 10:59:20 PM)

It wasn't that was expecting to see massive subs sunk, I was just unsure whether my tactics were sound. I did form them based on prior experience with WitP and what I read from here. The most disturbing factor has been the lack of detection and therefore sinking from unseen subs. This made me doubt whether I was doing all that I could be doing. From what I have been reading, detection is the key to disrupting their activities.

Also, I was particularly disturbed when these subs below Tokyo sank several APs loaded with what was once a nice sized INF unit :P

P.S. yes, FOW is on because us humans shouldn't need even more advantages over the AI :)



Nomad -> RE: About ASW (4/8/2011 11:18:47 PM)

How is the ASW rating for your pilots? Most Betty and Nell pilots do not have much of an ASW rating. That will have a lot to do about sighting and attacking subs by air. Also remember that aircraft on ASW patrol will only search to 1/2 of their max range( as set on the unit info screen )



CyrusSpitama -> RE: About ASW (4/8/2011 11:34:51 PM)

I understood the range issues and don't see that as much of a problem. As for the ASW experience, it is now currently averaging damn close to 60 for all my Betty/Nell ASW considering the time spent performing ASW.

As for the float patrols, they are now looking at 80+ for exp since the ONLY thing they have done is ASW since the start except for some Petes doing recon or naval search. The Nells and Bettys did do some switching around for obvious reasons but, their primary duty for certain AFs was ASW. Of course, I have Bettys and Nells largely on either (number 1 duty) Naval or (2nd duty) ground related attacks. The Bettys/Nells chosen for ASW were covering gaps in my FP aircraft coverage.



jmalter -> RE: About ASW (4/9/2011 5:31:01 AM)

i use 1000' altitude for ASW patrols, set them to ASWpatrol / ASWtraining 'til they get up to 60+ ASW, then change the mission to Naval Attack (but keeping the ASWpatrol / training ratio). Your pilots need to gain LowN value to improve their ASW kill #s. Make sure they're set to bombs, not torps! As their ASW skill increases, i tail off the training %age & increase the patrol %age. once ASW & LowN skills are roughly equal, i switch the training between ASW & NavAttack every month.



CyrusSpitama -> RE: About ASW (4/9/2011 5:41:41 AM)

Glad you mentioned the bomb and not torp issue. I remember reading somewhere bombs did better at ASW but, I cannot find that info now. I did have a few FPs using torps by accident but, my Nell/Betty AFs I kept a sharp eye on due to the varying duties.



inqistor -> RE: About ASW (4/9/2011 8:37:10 AM)

Planes rarely hit subs, just make sure, than once detected, you send ASW TF to that hex. Detected subs rarely attacks, and if there is also ASW TF in hex, they should not attack at all (except this TF [:D]).

You need both, planes for detection, and ASW TFs for attacks, but do not count, that ships actually go, where they are needed. Just send them manually.



nashvillen -> RE: About ASW (4/9/2011 6:43:04 PM)

As a JFB I have looked at the ASW issue as it is the most dangerous tool the Allies have against Japan over the whole war. Without Japan's economy she cannot do anything. I am going to be somewhat vauge here as my esteemed opponenet reads these boards. If you want more details please feel free to PM me. This is no secret to rjopel, but ASW TFs and aircraft patrols are high on my list of priorities.

In my current game my oppoenent and I are on 10/10/42 and in the three hundred turns, according to tracker, I have sunk 9 allied subs. Four by DC, 1 by minefield, 2 by port raid by carrier aircraft, 2 by ASW attacks by aircraft. The units credited with the sub kills are two different missions, one is ASW, the other Naval Search. The ASW group has an average pilot ASW experience of 60 with a range of 50-70 for all pilots in the unit. The Naval Search group has ASW skills that average 22 with a range of 10-30, their naval search skills are 56 average with a range of 46-62.

I agree on the "seen sub is an ineffective sub" from watching what his subs do and how much less effective my subs are when he sees mine.



DeriKuk -> RE: About ASW (4/10/2011 1:46:49 AM)

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]



Chickenboy -> RE: About ASW (4/10/2011 1:53:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

Still struggling with handling ASW properly and hoping for some feedback to adjust my tactics. Here is what I am currently doing to handle ASW.

Placing some Betties, Nells, and any local float planes on ASW patrols. I put them at low altitudes (100 feet). Gathering SCs and PBs in task forces of 2-3 ships and ASW patrol orders. I do 2 ships per TF if their ASW is > 4 and 3 ships if < 4 . Overlap the patrol areas in choke points and try to get them within one hex of each other in non-choke locations.

Is there anything else I can be doing to help with this? I seem to be detecting a fair number of subs but, so far I have only sunk 3 subs and had multiple *false sinkings* reported. Is it just because I haven't gotten to the better tech like radar and such? I have only gotten to late 42 so far so, I have not really seen the super-Es I have seen discussed on the forums as of yet.

P.S. So far the most brutal areas have been just below Tokyo and near Pescadores.

About the only thing I can think of differently is to consider the role of naval search aircraft in identifying submarines for your ASW air groups and ASW surface TFs. I think the trio works better than just the duo that you've described.

Floatplanes (single engine IJNAF floatplanes, that is) with high ASW are deceiving. Their small bombs may (slightly) damage Allied SS, but will likely be insufficient to kill it. Perhaps they may be put to better use as naval search platforms?



LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/10/2011 9:38:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]


Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well Iīd say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesnīt bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]



spence -> RE: About ASW (4/10/2011 9:58:21 PM)

quote:

Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well Iīd say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.


Operating Nazi U-boats under an Allied air umbrella became "extremely hazardous to suicidal". American/Allied submarines successfully strangled Japanese commerce for 3+ years operating under a Japanese air umbrella. For half of that time their quirky torpedoes were the only things slowing them down.

As far as IJN escorts are concerned the RL record of sinkings overwhelmingly favors the Allied submarines vs the Japanese escorts (of any class: 18 of the E class were torpedoed by Allied subs with 16 sunk).

According the IJN the ability to become a fearsome ASW force is quite likely overstating the proposition by a decent margin. According the IJAF such capability is delusional.

There is training and there is training.



LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 7:10:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
According the IJN the ability to become a fearsome ASW force is quite likely overstating the proposition by a decent margin. According the IJAF such capability is delusional.

There is training and there is training.


The Japanese never bothered to implement a working airborne ASW system but the raw material was there. Airborne ASW is neither material nor man intensive, and
the technological challenges are average compared to other tasks.
Radar and MAD makes ASW more effective, but it isnīt anything you need to make choke points or important passages deadly for subs in the first place.

The Japanese warrior tradition put the submarines on the lowest end of the military services, about as much effort was dedicated to counter them.

I think people often tend to confuse historical accuracy with linear gameplay. We have many choices ingame that where historically impossible because
of non-military obstacles (political, traditional, social,..).
Making decisions on a military only basis is an incemental part of WitP AE, the only small non-military obstacles are political points and ship withdrawals
- and thats nothing compared to the freedom of choice we have.

The Allies did not fly a massive heavy bomber campaign in Burma, the Chinese never got much more air support from the US than the AVG, never used
Indian troops in China or US troops on Java, the Japanese never developed a working ASW doctrine, never invaded Australia, never used submarines
with a dedicated anti-convoy routine, and so on.
These are (in-game!, in the real war they were as much traditional and political to make this decision impossible) tactical and doctrinal decisions the player
can reverse, he only has to be aware what the consequences are. There is nothing technologically preventing IJA bombers from becoming fearsome
ASW platforms.

Next time someone starts arguing that the IJN HAS to split KB to enable Midway to happen... [;)]



janh -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 10:05:00 AM)

^^ Sums it up...



Alfred -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 11:21:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]


Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well Iīd say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesnīt bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]


Hey LoBaron, where do I get some of this funding $$.[:)]

Do I have to apply to Brussels? Any particular form to be used? How is it provided, in the form of concessional loan rates or a straight grant? Do I retain the intellectual property rights to my analysis or are they assigned to the funding body?

Is the funding paid in USD or Euros or Yen depending on which side the analysis supports?

And finally how come you have kept sturm on this little caper until now. Isn't there some sort of anti cartel, pro competition law to facilitate widespread entry into the market place of ideas rather than just funding a select few to produce analyses to skew the general debate.[;)]

Alfred



Puhis -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 11:56:06 AM)

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-74.html



LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 12:25:13 PM)

Hey Alfred, I guess your elaborate answer should lead me to believe that the word I was
looking for was "founded"? [:D]

Funding from Brussles is simply accomplished by appearing as needy as possible and repeat
for a couple of times until your request gets looked over by a suficciently bored clerk.
Its easy I think. Not that I tried.

Ah and finally, I think you meant stumm (silent).
Sturm means either very gusty wind or hurricane, or is the German word for "must" (grape juice
before it ferments, very delicious I might add). [;)]

Canīt really answer that one. Some posts just cry out for response a containing a small bit of sarcasm.
A lot of dicerolls involved here too.


Puhis, interesting read, thanks!




LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 1:34:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-74.html



Hm according to the interview the Lorna was developed later than Sep 42. Which makes it a bit hard to
believe that it was a first, maybe the usual developement issues that pestered the Japanese throughout
the war when it came to new equipment?:

Q. Did the Japanese construct a special aircraft to be used against submarines?
A. In May 1945 we developed a special plane (LORNA) for escorting convoys, which was very similar to the BETTY. Twenty of these aircraft were delivered in July 1945 and used until the end of the war.


Also the figures look very low to enable complete convoy coverage, though Philipines to Formosa might
have well been possible considering the small distance.

Q. Describe the organization of the 901st Air Flotilla?
A. When organized in December 1943, the 901st Air Flotilla was composed of one unit equipped with 48 land-based twin-engine bombers and another unit equipped with 32 four-engine flying boats. As the American submarine threat increased, the fleet was gradually enlarged. In January 1945 it reached maximum strength. The aircraft assigned were as follows:

80 VOS (DAVE)
30 VB (KATE)
30 VF (ZEKE)
20 VB(2) (BETTY)
8 VPB (EMILY)


Looks like 901st was only able to cover a specific area of operations when in confined waters
or close to the coastline.
Good cover with long range patrols were impossible with these numbers. Wow, I did not know it was that bad.



FatR -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 2:08:59 PM)

Such are the perils of losing the war badly. One thing people often forget is that Allied sub successes in 1944 happened after Japanese were already on the rout and lacking strength in every area. USN subs helped to mop things up faster, sure, but they did not won the war by themselves... and you should not expect them to do so in the game. I do agree that late-war escorts were ridiculously strong (that's why I advocated applying changes to subs/escorts from DaBabes to Scen 70), but air ASW, well, if you allowing your Japanese opponent to use a thousand planes, all staffed with pilots well-trained for ASW duties, on ASW, maybe the problem lies not in the air ASW model.



Puhis -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 2:17:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/IJO/IJO-74.html



Hm according to the interview the Lorna was developed later than Sep 42. Which makes it a bit hard to
believe that it was a first, maybe the usual developement issues that pestered the Japanese throughout
the war when it came to new equipment?:

Q. Did the Japanese construct a special aircraft to be used against submarines?
A. In May 1945 we developed a special plane (LORNA) for escorting convoys, which was very similar to the BETTY. Twenty of these aircraft were delivered in July 1945 and used until the end of the war.


Q1W Lorna entered service in January 1945. Developement started late 1942.

This is just interrogation of one officer. I don't think Captain Kamide had all the details about airplane developement in Japan... [:D]



crsutton -> RE: About ASW (4/11/2011 10:26:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]


Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well Iīd say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesnīt bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]



Not to downplay the danger as it was always dangerous in heavily patrolled areas, Allied subs did this on a regular basis. The difference was excellent air seach radar that allowed them to dive many times before ever being seen by Japanese aircraft. In areas with heavy air patrol, Allied sub doctrine was to lay doggo under the waves during the day and then surface to feed on Japanese merchants in the night hours. Something they could do very well after they got 21 CM radar. Using radar, Allied subs were stalking the virtually blind Japanese merchants on the surface long after it became very dangerous for Axis subs to do so.
Sadly this is not reflected in the game at all and Japanese air search works just as well as the Allied and Allied subs always attack submerged and then get hammered by ASW forces that in real life had a very difficult finding and attacking them....

In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.



LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 5:31:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Not to downplay the danger as it was always dangerous in heavily patrolled areas, Allied subs did this on a regular basis. The difference was excellent air seach radar that allowed them to dive many times before ever being seen by Japanese aircraft. In areas with heavy air patrol, Allied sub doctrine was to lay doggo under the waves during the day and then surface to feed on Japanese merchants in the night hours.


True, the Japanese airborne ASW was nothing compared to a multi service ASW system the player can set up.

I am saying that the Japanese had the potential to do the same, not that they actually did.
Read post #15 for details. [;)]

quote:


Something they could do very well after they got 21 CM radar. Using radar, Allied subs were stalking the virtually blind Japanese merchants on the surface long after it became very dangerous for Axis subs to do so.
Sadly this is not reflected in the game at all and Japanese air search works just as well as the Allied and Allied subs always attack submerged and then get hammered by ASW forces that in real life had a very difficult finding and attacking them....


That probably has as much to do with the Japanese convoy system as with Allied radar.
The Japanese were neglecting ASW for reasons I tried to explain in post #15.

Also in my PBEM I have yet to see an US sub getting sunk by IJN ASW, and I do operate in hostile waters.

quote:


In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.


I guess just about any Japanese PBEM player will tell you otherwise.
Also the impact of sub warfare is much broader than a torpedo on course to a target. Though I agree thats the most satisfying. At least after 42...

People often simply play subs the wrong way. And then are surprized by the losses when they designate a PZ in ASW grounds and then forget about the boat for 6 months.



castor troy -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 8:14:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

People often simply play subs the wrong way. And then are surprized by the losses when they designate a PZ in ASW grounds and then forget about the boat for 6 months.



if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign Iīm going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesnīt matter "how" you play your subs then as itīs going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]

IMO ASW and the sub war in general is a vast improvement over WITP as it works very well from 41 until 44. From early 44 on itīs pretty much as borked as it was in WITP (with USN subs being the hunted - except in the all time favourite Speedy vs Fabertong PBEM) and if there isnīt a completely incompetent IJ player that fails to use his super E at all the subwar is going to be on a halt, which happens in the year the USN subs sank the most merchants in the war. The solution to all this seems to be playing a mod like DaBabes. Itīs not much different use, itīs more like a big difference in performance of what the players use.



Cuttlefish -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 9:03:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.



My own experience playing as Japan is that Allied subs are a catastrophic menace, not a fun novelty. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; the game has enough variation that different players can see a wide range of results. It is possible, for instance, that my ASW efforts, while vigorous, are less than effective.

The following screenshot is from my current game with Charbroiled, now in early July '43. The list only includes sinkings from Mk. 14 torpedoes. If it included the Mk. 10s and the British and Dutch torpedoes it would be much, much longer.



[image]local://upfiles/23804/F2E1654885E74FAAB04F29E206275C13.jpg[/image]



mjk428 -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 9:34:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

One thing people often forget is that Allied sub successes in 1944 happened after Japanese were already on the rout and lacking strength in every area. USN subs helped to mop things up faster, sure, but they did not won the war by themselves... and you should not expect them to do so in the game.


US subs didn't win the Pacific War by themselves but they did sink more Jap shipping than everything else combined. That's not mopping up.

quote:

During the Second World War, submarines comprised less than 2 percent of the U.S. Navy, but sank over 30 percent of Japan's navy, including eight aircraft carriers. More important, American submarines contributed to the virtual strangling of the Japanese economy by sinking almost five million tons of shipping—over 60 percent of the Japanese merchant marine. Victory at sea did not come cheaply. The Submarine Force lost 52 boats and 3,506 men.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/history/subsbeforenuc/ww2/




LoBaron -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 10:33:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign Iīm going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesnīt matter "how" you play your subs then as itīs going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]



The usual behaviour of a bad subfleet commander is patrolling on static and predictable areas, not
using deep ocean hexes, stubbornly operating under enemy air cover, not adapting to change of enemy ASW tactics,
using subs against high value/best protected targets exclusively.
I have seen lots of those. Including your AAR. [;)]

Its ok if you think that it doesnīt matter how you play your subs, I wont waste energy to start
a debate on that one.

I already mentioned that E class may be stronger than they should be, but I doubt
they are uber as you seem to think. Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ī44.



FatR -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 12:15:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

US subs didn't win the Pacific War by themselves but they did sink more Jap shipping than everything else combined. That's not mopping up.

That is. Most of their victories, including the overwhelming majority of large warships sinkings, fall into period when the speed of Allied advance was already mostly determined by Allied logistics. Had Allies stopped sub operations entirely from 1/1944, the end outcome would have been exactly the same, with, at most, 1-2 months of delay compared to the historical schedule, for later operations. So, if the Allied players sits and twiddles his thumbs, expecting the subs to win the war for him, instead of serving as a force multiplier, he should not use history as the ground for complaints, when this plan fails. If subs are correctly used, in conjunction with pressure on other fronts, though, they can inflict severe damage.






castor troy -> RE: About ASW (4/12/2011 12:34:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign Iīm going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesnīt matter "how" you play your subs then as itīs going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]



The usual behaviour of a bad subfleet commander is patrolling on static and predictable areas, not
using deep ocean hexes, stubbornly operating under enemy air cover, not adapting to change of enemy ASW tactics,
using subs against high value/best protected targets exclusively.
I have seen lots of those. Including your AAR. [;)]

Its ok if you think that it doesnīt matter how you play your subs, I wont waste energy to start
a debate on that one.

I already mentioned that E class may be stronger than they should be, but I doubt
they are uber as you seem to think. Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ī44.



you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldnīt start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, thatīs what weīve all got an ego for. Itīs not about high value targets, itīs about super E that are moving around in ASW TF of four ships that only got to end up in the same hex as a sub and youīve got a fair chance to have it either heavily damaged or sunk. Done a test and sent the result to kereguelen as we had some discussion about it back then and the results were like I would have try to simulate the convoy battles in the Atlantic, with the USN being the Kriegsmarine.

Itīs great to know that you are the only one to know how to handle things to create different result than (mostly) everyone else, yet I fail to see the prove for it, especially when you havenīt even reached the dates for it. I grant you to judge about airwar in 42, about ASW in 42, further up is becoming problematic as you say you havenīt even reached these dates. As long as you havenīt got a PBEM (I really donīt care much about an AI game other than for testing purpose) in late war youīve pretty much not experienced a lot of funny things, being it mega strikes followed by the usual halve dozen + piece meal waves, super E, three dozen error messages each turn due to things screwing up or anything else more than just me are seeing in the two turns daily. The every turn happening screw ups (which I tend to see in your partially posted combat reports too) are going xģ later on when you suddenly start having a thousand aircraft on each front instead of figthing with three units on each side.

As Iīm a nogo anyway, just take what JWE and DonBowen are doing, they obviously DID something in terms of subwar and the super escorts. Go ahead and tell them stock is right and DaBabes is wrong, keep it a secret that you havenīt experienced the timeframe though.[;)] Many things they have incorporated in their mod(s) are obviously coming closer to reality than what vanilla gives you (and Iīm definately not claiming all and everything is broken, even though thatīs what Iīm accused for).



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875