quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
Does this mean the Japanese player cannot take advantage of any better-than-historical game results in his favour to push on and capture
the next objective ahead of schedule?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqsA few years ago I aided another forum member and amateur historian who felt the same way about the USN unreliable torpedo parameters and set out to research the issue. My aid was a little software help with conversion and compilation. What he did was go through the war patrol records for all the USN subs in the Pacific and compile attacks, hits, targets, targets sunk, and so on to gain an idea of the numbers involved in malfunctions. He put tons of work into the project.

At the end, as I recall, the forum either did not hear about it or heard very little about it. Why? Because (as I recall) his research confirmed they had the numbers pretty much right.

In real life the torpedo issues were much more complicated than the game treats them as there were a number of malfunctioning features and the game simply gives two dates were the dud rate is reduced. That means any comparison with history will show differences with the game, but taken in the big lumps the game presents for the dud rate, the game is pretty accurate. Quite impressive, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I would also take this opportunity to post a remark on the previous discussion on reliable/unreliable US torpedoes: in the
five days with my game with Chickenboy, NO torpedo hits were made by allied submarines in spite of aggressive patrolling
and commanders - and "reliable" torpedoes.

You're incorrect.

Did I sink any...? If so, it has passed me by. Anyway, thank you for your cooperation.

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A few years ago I aided another forum member and amateur historian who felt the same way about the USN unreliable torpedo parameters and set out to research the issue. My aid was a little software help with conversion and compilation. What he did was go through the war patrol records for all the USN subs in the Pacific and compile attacks, hits, targets, targets sunk, and so on to gain an idea of the numbers involved in malfunctions. He put tons of work into the project.

At the end, as I recall, the forum either did not hear about it or heard very little about it. Why? Because (as I recall) his research confirmed they had the numbers pretty much right.

In real life the torpedo issues were much more complicated than the game treats them as there were a number of malfunctioning features and the game simply gives two dates were the dud rate is reduced. That means any comparison with history will show differences with the game, but taken in the big lumps the game presents for the dud rate, the game is pretty accurate. Quite impressive, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
Japanese boats have sunk thirteen allied ships...So, even with "reliable" torpedoes it seems the game is playing tricks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

6. I noted your use of submarines in coastal port hexes several times in our short game. This is a very risky disposition
for your submarines. If spotted, with enemy ASW in the hex, they are at risk of being lost. Coastal hexes are also at
greater risk from defensive minefields. Since you cite the unencumbered ability of your opponent's ASW, how have your
'several' Allied submarines been lost? Could it be that you exposed them to destruction in an ahistoric and injudicious
manner? I think that's more likely than 'the game is borked'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros
No more than what the Japanese did historically. As it were they constantly had greater success than expected, except with
MacArthur, still they did not make immediate use of the opportunity. Eventually, they found they had over-estimated the enemy
and sped up their advance. Was this time-window enough to make a difference for an aggressive US leadership? That's what
this is about. I believe I have stated this in previous postings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
And is the Brisbane Evening Star to be the only source of Allied wartime news? I might have to go off and buy a pair of reading glasses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock
Still not sure whether you are saying the Japanese player in your game can or cannot ever take advantage of better than historical results
to accelerate his invasion schedule. Perhaps the answer to this question will clarify things for me......will the Japanese player ever
be able to invade Tarakan and Menado earlier than Jan 11th, 1942 if the situation in-theatre has become more favorable than was historical?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqsA few years ago I aided another forum member and amateur historian who felt the same way about the USN unreliable torpedo parameters and set out to research the issue. My aid was a little software help with conversion and compilation. What he did was go through the war patrol records for all the USN subs in the Pacific and compile attacks, hits, targets, targets sunk, and so on to gain an idea of the numbers involved in malfunctions. He put tons of work into the project.

At the end, as I recall, the forum either did not hear about it or heard very little about it. Why? Because (as I recall) his research confirmed they had the numbers pretty much right.

In real life the torpedo issues were much more complicated than the game treats them as there were a number of malfunctioning features and the game simply gives two dates were the dud rate is reduced. That means any comparison with history will show differences with the game, but taken in the big lumps the game presents for the dud rate, the game is pretty accurate. Quite impressive, IMO.

To repeat myself, the purpose is not to test if "reliable" torpedoes would have changed history. Please see my previous posting.

I insisted on "reliable" torpedoes because my experience with the game so far is that this "unreliability" is exaggerated in the
game - just my opinion. "Reliable" torpedoes shall also to some degree (hopefully) mirror the more aggressive attitude of both
the US leadership and how this was conveyed to its boat commanders. To that purpose commanders have also been "topped" to some
deggree.

However.....on the afternoon of December 15th, in spite of aggressive positioning and numerous targets and contacts, allied
submarines have only sunk two enemy ships, one by a Dutch submarine, which were supposed to have reliable torpedoes as well
as able crews. Japanese boats have sunk thirteen allied ships, 64 allied ships in total till now. So, even with "reliable"
torpedoes it seems the game is playing tricks.

On the other hand, Japanese sub-chasers and sub-hunting destroyers live a charmed life as well as achieve good results against
allied submarines, several have been sunk.

Reliable torpedoes are certainly not changing this history, so far, anyway, but you are free to have your own opinion on this.
I have a war to fight so I won't use more time on this part of the game....[;)]

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

6. I noted your use of submarines in coastal port hexes several times in our short game. This is a very risky disposition
for your submarines. If spotted, with enemy ASW in the hex, they are at risk of being lost. Coastal hexes are also at
greater risk from defensive minefields. Since you cite the unencumbered ability of your opponent's ASW, how have your
'several' Allied submarines been lost? Could it be that you exposed them to destruction in an ahistoric and injudicious
manner? I think that's more likely than 'the game is borked'.

Thank you for excellent advice - but taking them literally would be "ahistoric" - would it not? I mean, the allies were the
amateurs. There are limits, though...[;)]...

Please, guys, file your opinions to your heart's content but do not expect me to use much time on replying. I have set the
parameters and I only hope my opponent shall uphold his patience, which has been excellent so far, to see this experiment
through. It is quite time-demanding. And it's my wife's birthday today... [:)]

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Your wife's birthday! So, does this mean you have to let her play a turn at the game? [:D]
What will you do if she does better than you? [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

Thanks. I asked only because I just wanted to confirm the point in this AAR after which the serious player vs player action would be present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

This better for you, Buckrock - I have upped the fonts a little?

Fred

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Heh, 140 ton PT Boats! Some FOW or "BS of Press" happening here- my PT boats are 35 tons in game. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Following .....

Interested as well.

@ Leandros:

Good Luck.

In a sense Leandros you are going to handicap yourself with a public AAR [:D]

I think I can safely suggest most of the forumites here are (1) well read in the subject (2) with opinions of course and (3) generally more than amateur historians although that is the only title I will lay claim to...


@ Chickenboy:

Indeed the power of the game is the multiple purposes, playstyles, and aggressiveness it can adopt and satisfy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Following .....

Interested as well.

@ Leandros:

Good Luck.

In a sense Leandros you are going to handicap yourself with a public AAR [:D]