quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

For comparison, some historical data:

Japanese CV/CVL/CVE sunk by US subs in 1941 = 0

Japanese CV/CVL/CVE sunk by US subs in 1942 = 0

Japanese CV/CVL/CVE sunk by US subs in 1943 = 1

- CVE Chuyo, 4 Dec 43, by Sailfish

Japanese CV/CVL/CVE sunk by US subs in 1944 = 7

- CV Taiho, 19 Jun 44, by Albacore
- CV Shokaku, 19 Jun 44, by Cavalla
- CVE Unyo, 17 Sep 44, by Barb
- CVE Akitsu Maru, 15 Nov 44, by Queenfish
- CVE Shinyo, 17 Nov 44, by Spadefish
- CV Shinano, 29 Nov 44, by Archerfish
- CV Unryu, 19 Dec 44, by Redfish

Looks like your in-game results match up pretty well with historical results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

You must be a jap player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

[>:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

By the war Jeff, I am looking at the game system Ive played probley as long as your self and maybe longer...its not a Allied or a Japanese player issue against one to the other...I am speaking of the system that maybe in historical error. But I am Not looking for your or anyone else's approval/disaproval. I am just stating something thats happening in my pbem games -game after game from Dec 42 until late 43. So like you said[>:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

[>:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

NO, I am not saying there is a CV Hull conspiracy.....I am saying if and when my subs launch a torpedo and it exsplodes it usually against a lesser target...that is all nothing more nothing less. But 99% of the time if a Japanese CV pop's into the picture and sub launches the torpedo will not fire. I know the answer before I see played out. I no what I see, and I KNOW what happens into 43' and 44'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89
[...]In my opinion this part of the game is deficient.....Right now subs being trained up...commander/leaders with decent rating and its still awaste...then torps that only seem to work against less important. Game is now in Mid Dec 42.[...]

Every allied player knows the feeling when hitting major combatants early war.

You are suspecting a CV hull conspiracy? Please donīt tell me that was meant in earnest. [8|]

Also you chose a weird time to complain. You only got a couple of days to go until it gets better. My sink (not hit) rate with MK14s is probably one ship
every 2-3 days in late ī43, for about a year already, and I donīt consider myself the best silent service player.

Besides damageing fleet CVs 3-4 times, we sank a CVL, a CVE and a BB with sub launched torps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Most annoying thing to me is the targeting formula. If the enemy has an escorted convoy then my subs tend to target the escort over the valuable cargo ships.

This was explained by a Dev a year or so ago and is intentional. Sub captains high in aggression will tend to 'press the attack' through the screen to get to the juicy targets beyond the escort. Captains lower in aggression will give up earlier in the hunt and fire a few shots at the escort instead. The higher speed of the escorts (relative to the juicy xAK, xAP, TK, AO etc. being escorted) makes a hit less likely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, that would be the case for American escorts after 42 anyways where they were pretty adept at spotting subs before an attack but that was never really the case with Japanese escorts who due to very poor equipment often failed to detect Allied subs before an attack and many times never found it after either. Japanese radar was so feeble that the most effective American tactic was to attack on the surface at night while using their superior radar. A tactic that had long become obsolete in the Atlantic for the opposite reason.

I don't really want to get into a whine about American subs. I have done it enough already.[;)] It is just than in an email game a decent Japanese player can pretty much totally neutralize the Allied sub effort for whatever reasons. I firmly believe that both players should be allowed to play better than their historical counterparts, so convoys and better air coverage should be an option. But Japan just did not have the technology or the potential to create the technology to counter the Allied sub effort to a great degree. And when the results are completely off the map then it is a problem. Any simulation of the war in the Pacific where the Japanese player is not "sweating" out Allied subs is a miss in my book.

But we have to accept that the game has pretty much gone under the knife as much as it is going to and it is pretty damn fine even with it's warts. We AFBs just have to find another way to bring the evil empire to it's knees.

1. Can the sub fire a torpedo (or more than one)?
   
   
   • Is the target worth a torpedo (with fog of war)?
     
   • Can the sub get into firing position?
     
     
     • Relative speed of sub and target TF
       
     • Detection level of sub and TF
       
     • Number and skill of escorts
       
     • Skill and aggression of sub commander
   
   
2. Does the torpedo hit the target?
   
   
   • Accuracy of torpedo (from device table)
     
   • Speed and maneuverablilty of target
   
   
3. Does it explode?
   
   
   • Dud rate of torpedo (from device table)
     
   • Nothing else
   
   

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
BTW, ask Bill and Hartwig how our torpedoes work against CVs. I don't seem to notice a difference. It may seem like it at times, but it seems pretty random on the success/dud rate to me against any target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
BTW, ask Bill and Hartwig how our torpedoes work against CVs. I don't seem to notice a difference. It may seem like it at times, but it seems pretty random on the success/dud rate to me against any target.

Just fine. For the Allied, that is.[sm=00000023.gif]