Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: USN lost 52 subs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: USN lost 52 subs Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 6:45:39 AM   
Venividivici10044


Posts: 137
Joined: 8/29/2009
Status: offline 		Just a thought I've had after reading through this thread at length.  If we have 60 years of hindsight to work from, why can't we presume that a competent allied player would quickly solve the Mk14 torpedo problem.  I'd say that one can state that the USN realizes in test firings the problems with the torpedo and has fixed it by December 1941.  

EDIT - In response to the next post - EXACTLY. To make myself exactly clear, I'm recommending that you play with reliable torpedos for the USN (ON), IF your worried about UBER Japanese ASW, thus providing balance. END EDIT

< Message edited by Venividivici10044 -- 2/3/2010 7:04:01 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 151
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 8:12:58 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Venividivici10044

Just a thought I've had after reading through this thread at length.  If we have 60 years of hindsight to work from, why can't we presume that a competent allied player would quickly solve the Mk14 torpedo problem.  I'd say that one can state that the USN realizes in test firings the problems with the torpedo and has fixed it by December 1941.  


And this is why we have the "Reliable USN torpedoes" switch in the game..

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to Venividivici10044)
Post #: 152
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 8:20:37 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

In addition he is free to employ the GLEN seaplane in a completely ahistorical and technically impossible manner flying continuous air search missions deep in the enemy rear areas with practically no likelihood of an operational mishap resulting from two high seas takeoffs and landings each day. What an amazing aircraft that must have been. From reading through the TROMs of the IJN subs at Combinedfleet.com mention seems to be made of every single time any of the aviation capable subs carried a plane at all and each and every flight flown when they did.



Spence is right - this is another skewed feature in the game. But I bet it's such a useful and cool feature of the game - maybe the only decent way for the Japanese player to gather intel - that those who play IJN would cut off their right arms before they'd agree to restoring the Glen to its historical role.


Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?


I'm not in the game right now, but IIRC the defuault for them is 25%, which is what I leave them at. I don't bother changing those, its not worth the clicks.



if you have one search ac and two phases per day what happens when you set it to 25% (IIRC you can only adjust it in steps of 10% anyway). So below 50% for one ac searching would mean not flying at all IMO. right or wrong?

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 153
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 9:59:11 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I do not quite understand what this thread is all about.  When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW.  When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW.  So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.   

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 154
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 1:58:24 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 155
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 2:06:13 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player



But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 156
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 2:30:40 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


[Nah. Blair's excellent book did not have access to all Japanese intelligence that existed in 1941-1945. Much was destroyed in the war, the recipients of said information killed, etc.



Just 'cause Blair didn't write about it didn't mean the IJ didn't know about it and learn something very valuable from it.



I don't see how the absence of a smoking gun constitutes proof and I never suggested that Blair was god. What i said was that given the depth of his research, for him to conclude "may have" vs. "did" indicates that there is no definitive proof that such occured. Lockwood's assertation was written post-war and with emotion, not that i blame him. Blair's caution is further backed by the fact that USN sub losses did not appreciably jump up after the Senator's indescresion. In 1944, 19 subs were lost vs. 15 in 1943. Prior to June43, 7 were lost. After June, 8.



_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 157
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 3:16:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Thanks for the correction, Bullwinkle.

Too bad members of Congress can't be tried for treason and shot in wartime. If we're going to execute some scared private in the ETO as an example to others about desertion, a shootin' isn't any too good for the Congressman from KY, IMO.


Not to hijack the thread, but members of Congress aren't immune from felony prosecution, or treason prosecution. They don't stop being citizens when they get elected. But Article I, Section 6 gives them special protection for statements made on the floor of either chamber--thank British actions pre-Revolution for that, and many other provisions in the Constitution and BOR. (Quartering soldiers in private homes hasn't been a thing for quite a while, but there it is. We colonials have long memories.)

Treason is a very hard thing to prove at trail given the constitutional definition of the thing. Treason trials have been remarkably rare. More commonly, as with, for example, the Rosenbergs, the prosecution has been for espionage and not treason. Both can get you the death penalty, but espionage is far easier to prosecute.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 158
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 3:59:12 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

In addition he is free to employ the GLEN seaplane in a completely ahistorical and technically impossible manner flying continuous air search missions deep in the enemy rear areas with practically no likelihood of an operational mishap resulting from two high seas takeoffs and landings each day. What an amazing aircraft that must have been. From reading through the TROMs of the IJN subs at Combinedfleet.com mention seems to be made of every single time any of the aviation capable subs carried a plane at all and each and every flight flown when they did.



Spence is right - this is another skewed feature in the game. But I bet it's such a useful and cool feature of the game - maybe the only decent way for the Japanese player to gather intel - that those who play IJN would cut off their right arms before they'd agree to restoring the Glen to its historical role.


Even against the AI it seems logical to me to limit my use of Glens; I set them to 50 rest and shorten their range to only one. Does anyone else do something similar ?


I'm not in the game right now, but IIRC the defuault for them is 25%, which is what I leave them at. I don't bother changing those, its not worth the clicks.



if you have one search ac and two phases per day what happens when you set it to 25% (IIRC you can only adjust it in steps of 10% anyway). So below 50% for one ac searching would mean not flying at all IMO. right or wrong?


What it means is it sometimes launches and sometimes doesn't. Generally you get a search every other day in my experience.

Here is a screenshot for the default settings of the Glen on I-15 day 1. All Japanese ship-borne float-plane groups are set like this one as far as I can tell, btw.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 159
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 6:29:13 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?


< Message edited by spence -- 2/3/2010 6:30:12 PM >

(in reply to Venividivici10044)
Post #: 160
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 7:04:05 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?



I didn't code the DB, just showing you what it is.

If you don't want your opponant using the Glen to search, then a house rule can fix this. Even if you change it to a recon plane in the DB, it will still be able to carry out the Naval Search mission type, so really a House Rule is the only way to accomplish what you want at this time.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 161
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 7:30:48 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I really don't know much about the Glen, but as a plane that had to be assembled each time it was used and considering the environment it was used in, I would've figured it would have a higher service rating.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 162
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 7:59:40 PM   
Mark Weston

 

Posts: 188
Joined: 2/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?



If I'm reading the search arc display correctly, the Glen can search a maximum of a 20 degree arc in one day. Hardly seems worth getting het up about.

< Message edited by Mark Weston -- 2/3/2010 11:16:18 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 163
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/3/2010 9:28:29 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline 		All the Japanese float planes have a service rating of 1.
Not sure about all the Allied float planes, but I do know the Kingfisher also has a service rating of 1.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 164
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 1:34:53 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Oh, I understand, I was just thinking of the special situation of the Glen needing to be assembled before flight and thought that might increase the maintenance burden.

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 165
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 4:24:35 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Seems at minimum they should only be granted one flight a day for sure.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 166
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 5:10:40 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Many historical correct comments and observations but remember that it's impossible to re-create the FOW, strengths and weaknesses that existed in the different camps when war broke out in 42. Indeed I also got a long list of things I'd love to see changed;

I think to much info is revealed in general!

A sub is attacked by asw vessels and lots of info is immediately given to the player - in real life it would be very hard for the sub to spot much while diving deep, not to talk about transmitting something that will be received and copied.

Same with land combat, a clear cut picture of the opponent is immediately visible if you perform a bombardment mission and a very handy odds indicator helps the player to know what it will take to capture the base.

Japanese culture and infighting in Navy - Army was something that deeply affected the outcome of the war...same as the poor coordination and cooperation between ABDA forces in 42 did. But how to simulate this?

Also players have access to all possible info and hindsight related to WWII, units and leaders.

And so we can go on and on and my 2c is that we have to use house rules to maximise realism or play AE more as a game simulation. It's certainly a limit on how much Matrix can spend on AE and we have already gotten a lot of bang for the few buck we spent on this game - no matter how good it becomes it will never be good enough for everyone. So either we stick with it, enjoy the ride and come with constructive criticism or simply go and do something else!


Pretty much agree with everything you said here. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PzB74)
Post #: 167
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 5:12:24 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Oh, I understand, I was just thinking of the special situation of the Glen needing to be assembled before flight and thought that might increase the maintenance burden.

That might be a good adjustment. Move it up to 3 or 4 to acct for this.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 168
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 6:20:54 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I do not quite understand what this thread is all about.  When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW.  When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW.  So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.   


I think this statement could put an end to this thread

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 169
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 9:48:03 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player



But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.



The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships

Now assigning Fletcher , Tanaka and other such commanders to ASW and Subs i have an issue with .

The Glen was there to find target for subs and it was good at searching still its only 1 plane . Increasing the SR is fair enough.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 170
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 11:07:31 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player



But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.



The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships

Now assigning Fletcher , Tanaka and other such commanders to ASW and Subs i have an issue with .

The Glen was there to find target for subs and it was good at searching still its only 1 plane . Increasing the SR is fair enough.




The Glen wasn´t there to find targets for subs, that´s how it´s used in the game but this is not at all comparable to what it was capable in real life. Glens weren´t used on naval search.

_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 171
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 12:54:48 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player



But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.



The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships




Didn't ask to limit "technical issues"..., only to be fair with both sides. US had technical problems with the Mk XIV, and they are in the game that way with an option to "fix" them if the player(s) desire to do so. Japanese ASW was technically crap, but that's not the way it is in the game. Why not make it the garbage it historically was in the game..., with an option to "fix" it if the player(s) desire to do so?

Now that would be FAIR.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 172
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 1:12:26 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline 		Before 43 my IJN ASW sank a whopping total of five subs. Anyone who thinks Allied torps should be switched to fully working at the start of the game to counter this "Improved" early war ASW is misguided in my opinion.

At the start of 43 the IJN can convert/upgrade a lot of old DDs and APDs into potent ASW craft, something they did'nt do in real life until it was much too late. Perhaps these conversions could be put back in the game until late 43, to co-incide with the American torps working properly?

I know come Sept 43 I am going to start taking it up the sh****r with regards to losses from subs, but that was the story in real life I will just have to live with it.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 173
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 1:54:19 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 174
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 2:25:30 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)


The IJN was short of destroyers from the beginning. Since the admirals were planning for a great surface battle, they didn't want to waste their DDs on secondary missions.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 175
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 2:38:00 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)


Seems like the Devs gave the Japanese player the option of upgrading to ASW platforms a bit early. But keep in mind, that conversions to take time to complete, you might start it in 1943, but the unit might not be ready until 1944.

Also, Allied players do have the option of simply holding back their USN subs until the torpedo issue is fixed...you don't have to send them out without their teeth. Although given my experiences and the ineffectiveness of Japanese ASW attacks in my games, even sending out the toohtless subs that only get 1 out of 10 Torpedos to hit and explode is still a winning course of action.

I think I agree with LargeSlowTarget on this issue.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 176
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/4/2010 8:37:21 PM   
jackyo123

 

Posts: 697
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's a lonely feeling to think few if anyone is encountering the kinds of things I'm seeing.



I've seen them. As I've said, I have several (3) games going at once, and in two of them the 'balance' between allied/jap subs and allied/jap asw is just way off. If the Japs have super ASW because of a design decision to 'beef up asw effectiveness', then the Allies should certainly have the same. I think a major factor is the super scores for the Japanese captains, the propensity of subs to attack escorts, and the subs firing 6 torpedoes at everything in sight.

I think the easiest solutions, as I've said before and will mod into my next game, would be increased DC lethality, decreased Jap skipper scores, and increased naval scores for lower ranked US commanders (lt cmdrs and the like - those who would be commanding escort vessels and sub hunters).

The big change, that I dont think they will be able to code, is to tremendously decrease the likelihood that the subs go after escorts.

Last night - typical encounter - Japanese PB escorting 4 6000 ton xAK's filled with fuel. Allied sub fires a full spread of 4 torps - at the PB (a dinky little 10 knot PB with 1700 mile range).

?????

Definitely needs tweaking. Those fat and juicy merchants were just asking to be picked off. Why would the us skipper fire at the silly little PB that cant even keep up with his sub? It was no threat.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 177
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/5/2010 5:32:40 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Definitely needs tweaking. Those fat and juicy merchants were just asking to be picked off. Why would the us skipper fire at the silly little PB that cant even keep up with his sub? It was no threat.




The coding here directly contradicts USN doctrine. In the early war a US sub commander would have put in front of a courts martial for wasting torpedoes on the escorts. When the order went out to wage unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan the priorities set clearly put the freighters ahead of the PBs. Major warships might have been first but PBs are not them: think carriers and battleships and "big" (definition varies in the heat of combat) cruisers. DDs were not considered worthy targets until mid-1944. The USN did not have a flawed strategic vision of how submarines would contribute to final victory; only flawed weapons. The IJN was the proud possessor of the opposite.

(in reply to jackyo123)
Post #: 178
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/5/2010 6:00:13 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I do not quite understand what this thread is all about.  When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW.  When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW.  So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.   




_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 179
RE: USN lost 52 subs - 2/5/2010 8:05:01 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Jeeeez. Let's all just play awile before making any huge assumptions.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: USN lost 52 subs Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875