Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Hmm...did you lose your password?

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Hmm...did you lose your password?

I NEVER lose MY password..., but when I changed ISP's a while back I lost THEIR password to the members area. So now you are all cursed with two of me (one even fatter and uglier than the other)!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

True. Both sides have made the claim. And I have no objection to a Japanese Player who does something "clever and innovative"..., as long as that's what it is. Just remember that only the Japanese player has the option to base his offensive totally on hindsight and game knowledge from the start. By the time the Allies get rolling, the situation will be different in each game.

So if "clever and innovative" turns out to be re-routing his first turn landings (the ones with "bonus moves") to Darwin or Rangoon or New Caledonia or Mersing orsome other location that they could never have reached without giving up surprise and setting every Allied Force in the Pacific moving, I object.

quote:

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is gamey in the least case and I'd go as far to calling it cheating, and I am a JFB.

I have one game of AE going PBEM. I also have a very good and thoughtful Allied opponent. Good enough that he rerouted PoW and Repulse and wiped out one of my landing task forces early on. I have no complaints about it, he saw me make a mistake and made me pay dearly for it. Instead of coming in here and whining about how he managed to sneak that SAG in under my air superiority, I've changed my tactics to make sure it can't happen again. That is the difference between a lot of what goes on in these forums and me. I didn't like getting spanked like that, but I learned from it and go on. And it was a gutsy and brilliant move on his part...kudos, he'll keep me on my toes from now on.

Too bad so many people who get hit with a similar situation will automatically cry that the game is bugged or that the move was gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is gamey in the least case and I'd go as far to calling it cheating, and I am a JFB.

I have one game of AE going PBEM. I also have a very good and thoughtful Allied opponent. Good enough that he rerouted PoW and Repulse and wiped out one of my landing task forces early on. I have no complaints about it, he saw me make a mistake and made me pay dearly for it. Instead of coming in here and whining about how he managed to sneak that SAG in under my air superiority, I've changed my tactics to make sure it can't happen again. That is the difference between a lot of what goes on in these forums and me. I didn't like getting spanked like that, but I learned from it and go on. And it was a gutsy and brilliant move on his part...kudos, he'll keep me on my toes from now on.

Too bad so many people who get hit with a similar situation will automatically cry that the game is bugged or that the move was gamey.

Here I would agree 100%. The real fun of a game such as this is in trying to make better use of what the antagonists really had, and could really do. Sounds like your opponent got in a "morale booster"..., and as I generally play the Allies, I know how important it is to "get in a lick" every so often while basically just getting hammered. And I salute you for recognizing that not everything will go "dead solid perfect" even with the best of plans. Sounds like the two of you are having a really good game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This confuses me. Players SAY they want to play Japan..., then they talk about a "fair fight". There was nothing "fair" about the War in the Pacific. Japan jumped a bunch of still unprepared nations by surprise in a land grab...., then "reaped the whirlwind" when the folks she jumped fully mobilized their massive resources and came looking for "payback".

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

True. Both sides have made the claim. And I have no objection to a Japanese Player who does something "clever and innovative"..., as long as that's what it is. Just remember that only the Japanese player has the option to base his offensive totally on hindsight and game knowledge from the start. By the time the Allies get rolling, the situation will be different in each game.

So if "clever and innovative" turns out to be re-routing his first turn landings (the ones with "bonus moves") to Darwin or Rangoon or New Caledonia or Mersing orsome other location that they could never have reached without giving up surprise and setting every Allied Force in the Pacific moving, I object.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

What's the first allied move in a non-historic turn one? Re-routing force Z to somewhere less suicidal. That one act of hindsight adds two battleships to their naval order of battle. As the allied player planning your defence, the Japanese have no secrets from you. You know the exact locations of all their high-priority targets and have a clear idea of the forces they have to take them with. From week one you can and will be reinforcing and fortifying locations that the historical decision-makers had no idea would ever be under threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

What's the first allied move in a non-historic turn one? Re-routing force Z to somewhere less suicidal. That one act of hindsight adds two battleships to their naval order of battle. As the allied player planning your defence, the Japanese have no secrets from you. You know the exact locations of all their high-priority targets and have a clear idea of the forces they have to take them with. From week one you can and will be reinforcing and fortifying locations that the historical decision-makers had no idea would ever be under threat.

It's probably also the first thing they will try to do in an historical start as well (provided the ships haven't already been sunk..., two days early and BEFORE they historically left port). Why? Because as Admiral Phillips and virtually everyone else but Winston Churchill knew, it was a bad idea. And as the player isn't saddled with Winnie, he probably won't do it.

And what the Japanese goals would be was no surprise to the historic commanders either..., only the speed at which they were able to advance. Read the historic accounts..., EVERYBODY knew where the Japanese were going from day one. What is a-historic is one single mind (the player's) being able to co-ordinate the defensive efforts. But this is an advantage the Japanese will share throughout the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

And heading back towards the subject of this thread, I think we have to recognise that the in-game performance of Japanese ASW will always be better than historical. Because whatever the technical or resource limitations the IJN were having to deal with, ultimately their major failure was simply one of decision-making and organization. In AE those two areas are under the player's control, not the game system's. And when the history of the Pacific war offers such clear and obvious lessons we can assume that 100% of Japanese players are going to make better decisions than their historical counter-parts. While I understand that might be an uncomfortable fact for those of us who particularly value historical accuracy, I don't think it's fair to try to stamp out the effects of hindsight in one area of the game when it affects all of the strategic (and many of the operational) decisions made by the players. If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, then those who do never will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was.

Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?

Your presumption is that the Japanese are given some unhistorical in-game ASW advantage, but I've seen very little actual evidence for that in this discussion. And the historical record indicates that it wasn't technical factors that won or lost the ASW war anyway, it was the tactical and organisational. The evidence from World War I was that convoy sharply reduced merchant sinkings even when convoys were unescorted. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Japanese flotilla that was based in the Mediterranean and earned a reputation for effectiveness against Central Powers submarines. The Japanese earned that reputation despite the fact that their ships didn't have a single ASW weapon system on board. They won it with tight, efficiently crewed ships, good lookouts and the very simple tactic of spotting submarines early, then charging down and attempting to ram every submarine that they saw.

You can guarantee that almost every Japanese player will sail his merchants in convoy, not singly. And that he will add ASW-capable escorts whenever possible. We also see that most allied players are much more aggressive with their subs than the was historical - especially early on - and will operate them at a much higher operational tempo. Combine those changes from historical behaviour and you're already certain to see many more allied subs sunk; that would probably be true even if the World War II IJN were still relying on ramming as their only ASW weapon. Massive variation from historical behaviour inevitably leads to massive variation in outcomes. There's no need to look for some built-in Japanese ASW advantage to explain that variation.

I'm not arguing that the ASW system in AE is perfect. I'm not an expert on the game, and a lot of the mechanics are hidden from us. But if the ASW game was so horribly biased towards the Japanese, it would be useful if we could be shown a bit more evidence of it. In the meantime, I think it's mostly a simple case of hindsight changing behaviour and behaviour changing results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Here is something I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.

Actually, that's pretty massive. Having ASW ratings of 6-8 on ships with crews and captains that have at least decent stats, as well as with passable range and speed, is something not easily available to Japan in 1942. IIRC, all early-game Japanese ships that have cruise speed and endurance to keep up with fast convoys, never mind combat TFs, have ASW 2. Or less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

the only advantage for Allied ASW I notice is the fact that they´ve got a higher ASW value due to having more DC racks and their DCs have a better accuracy and a higher effect. That´s it.