RE: About ASW

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: About ASW

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 >> RE: About ASW

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 12:47:38 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

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.

+1, exactly my line of thinking.

_____________________________

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 31

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 1:50:28 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

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.

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

From Admiral King's final report to the Secretary of the Navy http://www.valoratsea.com/King.htm:

"Sinking of enemy merchant ships rose from 134 ships totaling 580,390 tons in 1942 to 284 ships totaling 1,341,968 tons in 1943. Then in 1944, when submarine coordinated attack groups reached the peak of their effectiveness, the merchant fleet of Japan suffered its worst and most crippling blow-492 ships of 2,387,780 tons were sunk or destroyed in submarine torpedo and gun attacks. The figures given above, which are based on evaluated estimates, include only ships of 1000 tons and larger. It should be borne in mind that our submarines sank or destroyed, chiefly by gunfire, large numbers of smaller vessels, particularly during the latter part of the war, when few large enemy ships still remained afloat. In 1945, because of the tremendous attrition on Japanese shipping by our earlier submarine operations and the destructive sweeps by our fleets and carrier air forces, enemy merchantmen sunk by submarines dropped to 132 ships totaling 469,872 tons. The advance of our forces had further driven Japanese ships back to the coast lines and shallow waters of Japan and the Asiatic mainland. Our submarines followed the Page 202 enemy shipping into these dangerous waters and made many skillful and daring attacks, such as the one in April when TIRANTE entered a patrolled anchorage in Quelpart Island to blow up a 10,000 ton tanker and two 1,500 ton escort vessels, which were peacefully lying at anchor. Further south, persistent submarine patrolling plus air sweeps had, by the end of March, stopped almost all enemy traffic along the sea lanes of the East Indies and the coast of Indo-China. For a time, Japanese shipping continued to ply in the East China and Yellow Seas, but the invasion of Okinawa in April soon made the East China Sea untenable to the Japanese. Causing heavy damage, our submarines were very active during April and May in the Yellow Sea and along the east and south coasts of the main Japanese islands. In June the landlocked Sea of Japan was penetrated in force. The submarines had excellent hunting, and in a series of coordinated attacks did tremendous damage to the remnants of the Japanese merchant fleet. One of the intruders, BARB even landed a party on the coast of Honshu, and successfully blew up a bridge and the speeding train that was crossing it. By the end of the war, the Japanese merchant fleet was virtually nonexistent.

ATTACKS ON NAVAL VESSELS
While United States submarines were effectively eliminating the Japanese merchant fleet, they were also carrying out damaging attacks on Japanese naval units. During the course of the war, the following principal Japanese combatant types were sent to the bottom as a result of these attacks: Battleship 1 Carriers 4 Escort Carriers 4 Heavy Cruisers 3 Light Cruisers 9 Destroyers 43 Submarines 23 Minor combatant vessels and naval auxiliaries (including 60 escort vessels) 189 Details of these sinkings will be found in Appendix A. While the loss of the heavier naval units was critical to the Japanese, especially as the strength of our surface fleet increased, the surprisingly high losses of enemy destroyers and escort vessels to submarine attack are particularly noteworthy. Our submarines, refusing to accept the role of the hunted, even after their presence was known, frequently attacked their archenemies under circumstances of such great risk that the failure of their attack on the enemy antisubmarine vessel placed the submarine in extreme danger of loss. So successful, however, were these attacks that the Japanese developed a dangerous deficiency of destroyer screening units in their naval task forces, and their merchant shipping was often inadequately escorted. "

How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons. Reading this forum, especially some of the non-US posters' missives, one would think that the USN submarine war was an afterthought. The figures do not bear that out.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 32

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 2:58:16 PM

Major SNAFU_M

Posts: 583
Joined: 11/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Planes rarely hit subs...

You have obviously never played Silent Hunter II/III...

_____________________________

"Popular Opinion? What I suggest you do with 'Popular Opinion' is biologically impossible and morally questionable." -

"One ping to find them all,
One ping to link them;
One ping to promote them all,
and in the darkness sink them"

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 33

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 3:02:58 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

Do you really believe, that outcome in Leyte Gulf was ever actually in doubt, or that there possibly was a probability of achieving any for significant results for Japanese, or you just in need of some loud words?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

Actually yes, inability to take any meaningful defensive action when the enemy assaults your line means that you are routed. Demolition of Truk only highlighted the inability of IJN to resist Allied advance. And even if before Marianas Japanese actually had any options, save for picking the place where they would like IJN to be destroyed for little to no effect, which is arguable, past Marianas they certainly hadn't. Had all USN submarines disappeared from the world, Japanese could have put somewhat stiffer resistance on the ground and stage more air attacks on Philippines and later, accounting for the delay I've mentioned above, but still without any hope of changing the overall outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

As subs, however, didn't accomplish that (actual results were 4870k tons out of 8924k tons of sunk or severely damaged merchant tonnage), who cares.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

I had 4 carriers hit by sub attacks in 1942 alone, and hit, IIRC, 2, when playing Allies (Japanese operated their carriers much less intensely in that game). This is ahistoric, so the game is clearly broken!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons.

6.5 millions. Lossing, IIRC, about 1.5 millions of that to subs was quite significant, of course, considering that Japan started with a deficit of shipping... but less significant that loss of ability ot use foreign shipping due to commencing of hostilities, actually. But still, RL was not the scenario where Allies either played Sir Robin or failed badly in 1942, so it should only be compared to games where Japanese are pressured early and heavily, like, Cuttlefish's game from which he posted screenshots above.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 34

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 4:58:25 PM

offenseman

Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn�t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that�s what we�ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 35

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 6:53:52 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

Do you really believe, that outcome in Leyte Gulf was ever actually in doubt, or that there possibly was a probability of achieving any for significant results for Japanese, or you just in need of some loud words?

Hey, buddy, I wasn't the person who used "rout." Maybe we have a differnet definition of the word. I would agree, for example, that the performance of the Red Army in the first months of Barbarossa was a rout. Historic, epic even.

Leyte Gulf woud have been an American disaster if the Japanese main force had kept coming and attacked the landing beaches. The IJN would have ultimately lost, yes, but they would have set back the invasion of the PI 6-9 months or more, and scored a propaganda victory on a tiring US public of immense value.

Given what they had to work with in October 1944, yeah, I think that would have been significant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

Actually yes, inability to take any meaningful defensive action when the enemy assaults your line means that you are routed.

Tell that to the men who died on Iwo Jima. FWIW, I don't agree with your definition. If that is used, Japan was routed on December 8, 1941.

Demolition of Truk only highlighted the inability of IJN to resist Allied advance.

Again, not the defiinition of the word.

rout1 /raʊt/ Show Spelled
[rout] Show IPA

�noun
1. a defeat attended with disorderly flight; dispersal of a defeated force in complete disorder: to put an army to rout; to put reason to rout.

And even if before Marianas Japanese actually had any options, save for picking the place where they would like IJN to be destroyed for little to no effect, which is arguable, past Marianas they certainly hadn't. Had all USN submarines disappeared from the world, Japanese could have put somewhat stiffer resistance on the ground and stage more air attacks on Philippines and later, accounting for the delay I've mentioned above, but still without any hope of changing the overall outcome.

Hmm, WHY do you figure they were having such a hard time resisting? Why couldn't they build ships, or put fuel in the ones they had? Why couldn't they move men and supplies around safely deep inside their defense perimeter? Perhaps the submarine campaign of 1942-43 had decimated their merchant marine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

As subs, however, didn't accomplish that (actual results were 4870k tons out of 8924k tons of sunk or severely damaged merchant tonnage), who cares.

Apparently you, since here you contrtadict what you say below. I'm interested where you get the figure of 8.9 million tons of merchant shipping sunk as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

I had 4 carriers hit by sub attacks in 1942 alone, and hit, IIRC, 2, when playing Allies (Japanese operated their carriers much less intensely in that game). This is ahistoric, so the game is clearly broken!!!

I repeat, however, if subs were so worthless, how did they sink so many major combatants? You know, for guys hanging out, "mopping up"? Probably should have been embarrased to take their paychecks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons.

6.5 millions.

Again, cite?

Lossing, IIRC, about 1.5 millions of that to subs was quite significant,

Especially since the figures in Adm. King's official report to SecNav are WAAAAY above that, but go on. Use JANAC if you like; you'd still be wrong.

of course, considering that Japan started with a deficit of shipping... but less significant that loss of ability ot use foreign shipping due to commencing of hostilities, actually. But still, RL was not the scenario where Allies either played Sir Robin or failed badly in 1942, so it should only be compared to games where Japanese are pressured early and heavily, like, Cuttlefish's game from which he posted screenshots above.

I'm not commenting on games of AE. I'm commenting on the incorrectness of your statements against RL events and outcomes.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 36

RE: About ASW - 4/12/2011 8:20:36 PM

spence

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

quote:

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.

What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 37

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 11:16:31 AM

Chris21wen

Posts: 6249
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

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!)

Look on the bright side. Come 1944 when the Japanese E class ASW ships kick in you will have the weapon all desire.

(in reply to Capt Hornblower)

Post #: 38

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 11:48:04 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

Or perhaps you think so because your skills are not on par with either historical USN commanders or numerous players who did just that, as evidenced by about half of existing AARs.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 39

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 11:55:40 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn�t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that�s what we�ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven�t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I�m a good car driver, I�m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I�ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren�t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn�t agree here. Nik�s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I�m a rookie. You won�t get your Oscars to rock...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/13/2011 12:03:19 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to offenseman)

Post #: 40

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 4:52:30 PM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

I've reached mid-October 1944 in my PBEM vs. Rader. I'm playing the allies and in my experience allied subs have been useless as an offensive weapon since early 1943. I check and move sighted subs every turn and keep my subs in deep water hexes but it doesn't really matter. Any sub within 6 hexes of a japanese airbase or any sub in a busy japanese shipping lane is quickly and efficiently sunk or heavily damaged (at best). IMHO the only reasonable strategy for the use of subs after the happy days of 1942 is to keep them in quiet waters as a defensive screen or to deploy them within 2 hexes of an allied fighter airbase.

I'm certain that my japanese opponent (Rader) would say it's even worse for the japanese subs. My opponent seems to keep them in port and only rarely sends some out to contest an invasion or drop some mines.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 41

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 5:13:14 PM

offenseman

Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven�t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I�m a good car driver, I�m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all.

I am sure that LoBaron will be disappointed to see that it is set in stone that he will NEVER be able to do better against late war Japanese ASW than you have. LB- here is some advice, in 1944 put your subs in port and leave them there because the result of using them is predetermined! lol

Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate.

Why are you debating? From what I've seen on this forum it is simply because it is what you like to do. You stir the pot with anecdotal evidence and then get offended when someone disagrees. CT- its okay to have different opinions. Thsi game has room for different skill levels and strategies. :)

Or, like I�ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren�t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn�t agree here. Nik�s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

Your performance is no guarantee of the performance of others in the same game. Please accept that others will do better or worse than you. Your results are NOT the only possible results.

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I�m a rookie. You won�t get your Oscars to rock...

I have to agree there, you won't get Oscars to rock after the first few months of the war, but I would not equate them to the Gato and Balao class subs. Nor would I equate a Super E to a P47- they aren't as durable ;)

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 42

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 6:28:19 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn�t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that�s what we�ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven�t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I�m a good car driver, I�m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I�ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren�t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn�t agree here. Nik�s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I�m a rookie. You won�t get your Oscars to rock...

Dear CT, I will try to explain you something about me and I hope oud take the time to read and understand what I mean:

Most people I know would describe myself as someone who voices opinions but to only sticks to
them in case nobody can show me plausable alternatives to my point of view.

In case this does happen I question whether I could be wrong and depending on the
outcome of that I either change my opinion/point of view, get interested in finding it out whos right
- or regard it as an old story and either start a debate with the one who thinks different or
start ignoring the others opinion if I repeatedly notice that its not worth it.

To be concrete:

Concerning the debate on the E I am undecided, I also believe that it is possible to bevery dangerous with subs - in
case you try the right things - well after 43, as both sides. I tend to belive that the E can change the equation a bit but
not so much that it tilts the whole picture.

Thats why for me the discussion was over when I wrote:

"Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in �44." (post #28)

That you are coming back to the air war is not neccesary anymore because this belongs to another example from
above, which is ignoring you.

I just might tell you that the simple reason for this is that think I am right. Right enough that it is very close to "know".
And the most convincing proof for me is that I enjoy the air war. Tremendousely. It gives so much room for interpretation
that explaining what happens and reacting to it in a correct way can take several tries and a lot of shifting initiative
over short periods of time.

If you enjoy playing the air war you are at least having strange way of showing it.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 4/13/2011 9:32:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 43

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 6:32:39 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

And Mike. Rats, there goes my hope for getting underestimated. Now its overestion. Every players biggest enemy. You just delayed all Allied offensive operations for another
6 months.

_____________________________

(in reply to offenseman)

Post #: 44

RE: About ASW - 4/13/2011 8:24:51 PM

Tijanski

Posts: 30
Joined: 11/24/2010
Status: offline

I thought the naval designers say three or four times what is not good about E and japanese DC and how to fix it. Why is this going on again?

I fixed mine the first time they said do this and it works just fine.

< Message edited by Tijanski -- 4/13/2011 8:31:48 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 45

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 1:11:51 AM

spence

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

quote:

Or perhaps you think so because your skills are not on par with either historical USN commanders or numerous players who did just that, as evidenced by about half of existing AARs.

I haven't resorted to such BS.

The results of an encounter between any two opposing ships who happen to show up at the same place at the same time is basically a function of some coded numbers and a little luck. Player skill or lack thereof nothing to do with the result beyond putting the ships in the place.

As to Japanese ASW the following extract from the TROMs at Combined Fleet should say enough about how the vaunted E class fared against RL US subs.
For the time being we'll ignore the initial massacre of the convoy and just focus on the encounter between one E class and two other 1st line escorts and two US subs.

quote:

17 August 1944: Operation "SHO-1-GO" (Victory) - The Defense of the Philippines:
HIBURI and old destroyer ASAKAZE and kaibokans MATSUWA, ETOROFU and SADO arrive from Takao on the orders of 1st Surface Escort Division to strengthen convoy HI-71's escort forces. HI-71 is comprised of oilers AZUSA, TEIYO, EIYO, ZUIHO, AMATSU and KYOKUTO MARUs, fleet oiler HAYASUI, transports TEIA, AWA, NOTO, HOKKAI, TAMATSU, NOSHIRO and MAYASAN MARUs and cargo ships KASHII, NISSHO and MARUs. The convoy's screen is provided by Rear Admiral (Vice Admiral, posthumously) Kajioka Sadamichi (former CO of KISO) of 6th Escort Convoy with destroyers FUJINAMI and YUNAGI, kaibokans HIRATO, KURAHASHI, MIKURA, SHONAN and CD-11 and escort carrier TAIYO. At 0800, in typhoon weather, HI-71 sorties from Mako for Manila.

18 August 1944:
At 0524, LtCdr (Rear Admiral-Ret) Louis D. McGregor's USS REDFISH (SS-395) torpedoes and damages EIYO MARU. ASAKAZE and YUNAGI are detached to escort her back to Takao. Off Cape Bolinao, Luzon. At 2210, LtCdr (later Captain) Henry G. Munson's USS RASHER (SS-269) torpedoes and sinks oiler TEIYO MARU in a surface radar attack. At 2222, Munson torpedoes and sinks carrier TAIYO at the rear of the convoy. At 2310, RASHER, still on the surface, hits transport TEIA MARU with three torpedoes using radar bearings. The ex-French liner is set afire and sinks.

19 August 1944:
The convoy splits into two groups. Just past midnight, RASHER, still running on the surface, closes on an eastbound group of three large ships and one escort. At 0033, LtCdr Munson puts two radar-directed torpedoes into the port sides of AWA and NOSHIRO MARUs. Both ships beach themselves near Port Currimao. LtCdr Charles M. Henderson's USS BLUEFISH (SS-222) and LtCdr (later Captain) Gordon W. Underwood's SPADEFISH (SS-411) join in the attack on HI-71. At 0320, BLUEFISH hits and sinks HAYASUI. SPADEFISH hits TAMATSU MARU with two torpedoes and the big landing craft depot ship rolls over and takes down 4,755 men. HI-71 makes for San Fernando.

21 August 1944:
Rear Admiral Kajioka orders SADO, HIBURI and MATSUWA to proceed to Manila.

22 August 1944:
Hidai Bay, 25 nms W of Manila Bay. At 0456, Cdr (MOH, posthumously) Samuel D. Dealy�s USS HARDER (SS-257) torpedoes both MATSUWA and HIBURI in their port sides and stops them dead in the water. SADO signals for assistance.

At 0524, SADO is torpedoed by LtCdr (Rear Admiral-Ret) Chester W. Nimitz Jr�s USS HADDO (SS-255). At 0649, MATSUWA is sunk by HARDER.

At 0720, HADDO fires three torpedoes at the two remaining derelicts. One torpedo misses, but the others hit SADO squarely and sink her at 14-15N 120-25E. Cdr Taniguchi and 72 crewmen are KIA. Cdr Taniguchi is posthumously promoted Captain.

At 0755, HIBURI also sinks bow first at 14-15N, 120-25E.

How many subs sunk? was that ZERO.

How many escorts? 3 was that really three or maybe it was just two and a bad player.

Get a life.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 46

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 7:48:51 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tijanski

I thought the naval designers say three or four times what is not good about E and japanese DC and how to fix it. Why is this going on again?

I fixed mine the first time they said do this and it works just fine.

there will always be people arguing they would be good as they are in stock, that�s why the discussion will go on and will start over again. Same with Tiger vs Sherman, the dive, coordination, B-17 unstoppable, did land based radar really not work for over a year?, I bet search archs worked just fine!, fixed historical replacements vs unlimited production, etc, etc, etc.

I don�t mind the discussion, most times I don�t care and if then I shout out loud anyway as the ignorance might be big on the other side and you cheer up like a small child if the other side suddenly comes up with something you have been telling for nearly two years, that�s why it�s so fun to find out search archs or land based radar isn�t working and it takes many others no less than a year to notice that too while they tell you you know nothing about the game. It�s fun and as long as someone is changing something, everything is fine. In case of this thread, many mods have done something about it, mods of official ppl and mods of players only. Wonder why...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/14/2011 7:50:33 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tijanski)

Post #: 47

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 7:51:43 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven�t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I�m a good car driver, I�m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all.

I am sure that LoBaron will be disappointed to see that it is set in stone that he will NEVER be able to do better against late war Japanese ASW than you have. LB- here is some advice, in 1944 put your subs in port and leave them there because the result of using them is predetermined! lol

Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate.

Why are you debating? From what I've seen on this forum it is simply because it is what you like to do. You stir the pot with anecdotal evidence and then get offended when someone disagrees. CT- its okay to have different opinions. Thsi game has room for different skill levels and strategies. :)

Or, like I�ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren�t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn�t agree here. Nik�s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

Your performance is no guarantee of the performance of others in the same game. Please accept that others will do better or worse than you. Your results are NOT the only possible results.

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I�m a rookie. You won�t get your Oscars to rock...

I have to agree there, you won't get Oscars to rock after the first few months of the war, but I would not equate them to the Gato and Balao class subs. Nor would I equate a Super E to a P47- they aren't as durable ;)

applaus, you won�t believe me, I agree with most of this, doesn�t change anything about I�ve posted in this thread though.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/14/2011 7:53:05 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to offenseman)

Post #: 48

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 7:52:23 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn�t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that�s what we�ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven�t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I�m a good car driver, I�m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I�ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren�t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn�t agree here. Nik�s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I�m a rookie. You won�t get your Oscars to rock...

Dear CT, I will try to explain you something about me and I hope oud take the time to read and understand what I mean:

Most people I know would describe myself as someone who voices opinions but to only sticks to
them in case nobody can show me plausable alternatives to my point of view.

In case this does happen I question whether I could be wrong and depending on the
outcome of that I either change my opinion/point of view, get interested in finding it out whos right
- or regard it as an old story and either start a debate with the one who thinks different or
start ignoring the others opinion if I repeatedly notice that its not worth it.

To be concrete:

Concerning the debate on the E I am undecided, I also believe that it is possible to bevery dangerous with subs - in
case you try the right things - well after 43, as both sides. I tend to belive that the E can change the equation a bit but
not so much that it tilts the whole picture.

Thats why for me the discussion was over when I wrote:

"Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in �44." (post #28)

That you are coming back to the air war is not neccesary anymore because this belongs to another example from
above, which is ignoring you.

I just might tell you that the simple reason for this is that think I am right. Right enough that it is very close to "know".
And the most convincing proof for me is that I enjoy the air war. Tremendousely. It gives so much room for interpretation
that explaining what happens and reacting to it in a correct way can take several tries and a lot of shifting initiative
over short periods of time.

If you enjoy playing the air war you are at least having strange way of showing it.

you don�t have to explain me anything about you, neither do I have to explain anything about me to you as we "know" each other for one and a halve years now. And to repeat myselve, the worst thing you can do is to judge about something you haven�t even reached so far. Don�t give tips, advices or anything else about something you haven�t experienced as you just lack that experience. Go onto the slope to teach someone skiing when it�s the first time you are on skies yourselve and tell me how well that works.

Who said I�m enjoying the air war? I�m enjoying parts of it. Parts. And when you reach later years and not mid 42 with 50 bombers in a strike you will enjoy it still 100% as that�s how you are and as you know, I�m different. No problem. Yes, this thread is not about the air routines, we agree. You may well read up all the comments about pre flak Cap and what it turned out (surprise!), or ceiling sweeps (= exploit, surprise!), or anything else we enjoyed discussing over the last 18 months. And many times: surprise

I love reading the old anecdotes.

I really salute the previous devs which are now working on their mods to enhance things. And the reason they do tells me that there is a need to do so in their oppinion. Like WITP, AE will reach it�s high peak with all the mods at some point two or three years after release, many things will be patched, many things will be dealt with mods and that�s nothing but great.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/14/2011 8:02:59 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 49

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 8:43:41 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 50

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 10:00:35 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys.

Agreed, very good summary about high-altitude sweep and how one has to change his tactics to counter it. If player is too stubborn to do that, well...it's not the game that is broken.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 51

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 11:08:10 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
I haven't resorted to such BS.

Looks like I hit home. That AE is currently disbalanced in favor of Allies is an observable fact. Half of AARs - those where Japan wins pretty hard in 1942 - end on historical schedule or slightly earlier. Ever where the AAR of our champion AFB complainer, castor troy? He, IIRC, took Eastern DEI, Burma, and invading Philippines in summer of 1944. Other half, those where Japan falls short of unquestionable victory in 1942, end with Japan catastrophically defeated far ahead of schedule. The only exception I can think of at the moment is "Taming the Bear" game, where the Allied player was incomprehensibly passive until second half of 1944. I hope my "Ocean of Blood" game will be another exception, but putting aside the fact that it is in one of Enhanced Japan scenarios, I benefitted from the probably most fortuitious convergence of circumstances and opponents' mistakes possible there, and I don't think I'll be able to destroy Allied fleet so completely ever again.
So if you fail to defeat Japan on time in such metagame - and instead fixate of the fact that the metagame gives Japan a break in a particular area - the problem lies solely with your skills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The results of an encounter between any two opposing ships who happen to show up at the same place at the same time is basically a function of some coded numbers and a little luck. Player skill or lack thereof nothing to do with the result beyond putting the ships in the place.

If you're responding to me, try responding to me, not to your own thoughts that have nothing to do with my position on this particular subject clearly stated upthread. Also I love how you are trying to fall back to "But I was talking only about subs vs escorts!", even though everyone with working eyes can see that I was responding to:

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

< Message edited by FatR -- 4/14/2011 2:18:00 PM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 52

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 2:14:46 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Hey, buddy, I wasn't the person who used "rout." Maybe we have a differnet definition of the word. I would agree, for example, that the performance of the Red Army in the first months of Barbarossa was a rout. Historic, epic even.

And there you would be wrong. Because the central Pacific campaign starting from the invasion of Gilberts was far more of an one-sided beatdown, if for no other reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Leyte Gulf woud have been an American disaster if the Japanese main force had kept coming and attacked the landing beaches. The IJN would have ultimately lost, yes, but they would have set back the invasion of the PI 6-9 months or more, and scored a propaganda victory on a tiring US public of immense value.

It was almost a miracle that the Japanese main body was allowed to get past San Bernardino strait at all. If they got to the invasion beaches... they most likely wouldn't have been able to inflict catastrophic damage you take as a given, before getting cornered by American taskforces converging on them, due to exhaustion of ammo stores, accumulating damage from continuing air attacks, and, oh, continuing air attacks. What makes you think, that Japanese gunfire suddenly would have become much more efficient than it was in the battle against escort carriers, which they still needed to exterminated before striking at the landing beaches, had they pressed on? The invasion wouldn't have been set back by anywhere near 6 months in any case, considering that enough troops and materials were unloaded already to make unseating Americans from Leyte impossible, and that Allies had more than enough shipping to cover losses. Only loss of specialized amphibious assault ships might have been a problem, like, at all.

So, while it was certainly possible for Japanese to inflict greater damage and to make the sacrifice of the Combined Fleet less empty, I see no grounds for assuming that it was possible for them to inflict enough damage to even cause a major delay in the American campaign. Consider, that the entire Guadalcanal campaign was resolved faster that your supposed 6-month delay, even though the balance of forces then and there was infinitely more favorable to Japanese, and IJN managed to chase off American transports before they finished unloading.

As about "propaganda victory"... did I just found the first poster on this forum who thinks that a conditional peace was possible to achieve for Japan, in 1944 of all times?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Tell that to the men who died on Iwo Jima. FWIW, I don't agree with your definition. If that is used, Japan was routed on December 8, 1941.

No, you merely fail or refuse to undertand it. "Inability to take meaningful defensive actions" means that you are incapable of contesting the enemy's advance, unable to take initiative, is reduced to passively sitting and waiting for your doom, because every attempt to counterpunch the enemy ends with your forces getting destroyed for no significant results. Japan de-facto fell into this state around November of 1943, and by the end of February of 1944 it was patently clear, that USN owns the ocean and can rampage through their defenses almost at will. Appeal to the dead veterans is a nice debating move (although no, it isn't), but the fact remains that the outcome of Iwo Jima battle was predetermined the instant US planners decided that they want this island, and Japanese, even doing their best, had no ability to change this fact. And this is true for all the other battles before, starting from the point I've mentioned above.

And so, returning to Allied subs, while their activities past this point were, no doubt, a very cost-efficient way of administering coup de grace to the enemy, this does not change the fact that the enemy was already mortally wounded, with no hope of recovery, by the time the sub campaign reached its peak. But a lot of AFBs (regardless of the separate and real, although now hopefully fixed, super-E issue) seem to expect that subs should win the war by themselves, even when they don't really try or very much fail to ensure that their opponent wouldn't be able to devote a humongous portion of his resources to combatting subs, instead of the small portion Japanese were able to devote IRL, due to pressure on all fronts

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 53

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 3:22:05 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys.

just to point out to everyone (new and old players), TheElf, the air team dev leader himselve said ceiling sweeps (aka stratosweeps) would be an exploit. This was said, after one year rambling, grunting and ranting how the air routines work and what the ceiling sweeps do (with the effect of non working land based radar added in - which was also denied for a year until suddenly patched to work from then on). Knowing that LoBaron�s ability to remember things is a little behind his great knowledge of everything else, let me quote just one statement of TheElf about ceiling sweeps being an exploit (took me 1 min to dig up). So for all the new and old players, you either go with LoBaron�s statement on it or with TheElf�s statement about it. Both usually agree 100% which more than amazes me they wouldn�t be agreeing now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

TheElf: yup, your opponent is gamin the system.

can be seen here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2564311

being the numero uno ranter about strato sweeps for ages, I exactly stopped when I�ve first read it would be an exploit. It has been kind of funny that I have been first told for ages that everything works very well, mostly by Mr. LoBaron, to then see Ian posting it would be an exploit. Hoping to see something changed, at least I had the official statement that it�s not that great to have these ceiling sweeps.

Of course evil castor found something else to complain about after strato sweeps were called an exploit.

ps: If you wish to, I could also dig up some of your comments about pre Cap flak BEFORE the patch.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/14/2011 3:29:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 54

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 3:25:32 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys.

Agreed, very good summary about high-altitude sweep and how one has to change his tactics to counter it. If player is too stubborn to do that, well...it's not the game that is broken.

while in general agreeing with you comment I�m also referring here to the air team lead. The hr about going with the second best maneuver rating was said to be the best hr on this matter. Not my idea, but other players and confirmed by the air team lead.

If you don�t end up in a spiral to go higher and higher, it always was and always will work best if you stay at "reasonable" alts and I never denied that. If one ends up in the spiral, wel...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/14/2011 3:41:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 55

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 10:18:15 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

I categorically disagree with your points, but I'm sure I won't change your mind by arguing with you. Believe what you like.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 56

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 10:41:40 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
...

...

Gentlemen,

You both have points. Leyte Gulf and Samar in particular are bad examples. For one thing, my understanding is that the US transports were unloaded of troops and there were small mountains of supplies already off loaded also. If Kurita had continued he would have destroyed more ships and killed more men, and then almost certainly his force would have been destroyed in great detail.

Use of the word 'rout' is inaccurate. Seeing in the light of history that something seems to have been inevitable does not make the situation a rout. A rout is something quite different, where the enemy both ceases attempting to resist and retreats in panic and disorder. Imperial Japanese defenses from the Gilberts onward were not that at all.

However, "beat down" could apply although perhaps without universal agreement. The Allies, mainly in the US dominated theaters, had significant advantages and used them to systematically advance. As one of you mentioned, when Allied planners decided to get it they got it.

Defensive actions which are "meaningful" in one light might be viewed as meaningless in another. Certainly, war weariness on the part of the American people was a valid consideration as it was a serious concern of American leadership. So, even though the defense of Iwo Jima was understood to be doomed, the achievements of that effort in influencing the war as it progressed and how it would ultimately terminate were very much uncertain at the time.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 57

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 10:58:24 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

My concern was more with his untrue assertions about the USN submarine effort. It's constant in this forum, and usually by European posters. If it doesn't involve U-boats it was a cakewalk.

When I post actual figures which he apparently doesn't even read, why waste more time?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 58

RE: About ASW - 4/14/2011 11:59:30 PM

CyrusSpitama

Posts: 213
Joined: 2/21/2011
From: Naw'lins, Luzianna
Status: offline

While I appreciate the responses to my post, I did not ask for this to become a discussion of the "facts" of history or opinion !

My post was a simple question regarding whether I was doing my best to perform ASW because I am/was already seeing a painful loss to my shipping fleet. I have since started a brand-new, fresh game since I believe Oct'42 is far enough in to my first game to see the ramifications of many of my early decisions. With that said, let's try to get this post back on topic, agreed?

The biggest mistake I made? Too many factory changes/repairs/builds. I especially felt the loss of those early supplies being sucked up by repairs.

Second biggest? Too slow in the DEI allowing them to concentrate their defenses.

Up there in the top 5 mistakes... Allowing Allied subs to sink almost one merchant ship or more per day in the first three months of the war !!! I am not saying they sank exactly one AK or TK a day. I am saying they easily met this average due to having a few days of nothing, followed by key sinkings of loaded down APs, TKs, or AKs. Often, they sank multiple ships in a single turn cycle. While I was able to still handle my shipping needs in my game I just started over, I knew how badly I was punished by these earlier losses.

So, any further input on game related issues and the ASW issue would be much appreciated :)

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 59

RE: About ASW - 4/15/2011 12:37:13 AM

offenseman

Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And Mike. Rats, there goes my hope for getting underestimated. Now its overestion. Every players biggest enemy. You just delayed all Allied offensive operations for another
6 months.

I wish that were true but I do not believe you!