mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.
Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.
Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?
Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.
So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically?
Yes.
You cannot expect historical results from the game considering ahistorical style of play. No sane Japanese player is going to dispense his subs on penny-packet picket duty in the hope that a capital ship wanders into the periscope sights - they'll be actively stalking your major ports and supply lanes to hit anything that moves.
quote:
This while Allied subs canīt achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.
Again, you can't expect historical results from the game considering ahistorical style of play. No sane Japanese player is going to skimp out on convoy escorts or air ASW efforts to the extent that Japan did historically.
Sub combat isn't perfect, but the flaws effect both sides equally. Both sides are limited to a single attack per "encounter", both sides are more likely to waste shots at escorts, and both sides get the advantage of submarines that can be sent back out to sea after months of patrolling in the space of days.
quote:
Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.
No need to be. You sound just like me when I rail on to Lokasenna about the inhumanity of low level night bombing raids. A deep breath (and/or an alcoholic drink) makes things better.
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.
Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.
Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?
Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.
So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically? This while Allied subs canīt achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.
Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.
While I also think it's a bit rough that the Allies don't have a better shot at getting the same success as historical (and I think this is due both to players using escort religeously compared to the IJ in the war and to ASW air being too strong here based on Japan's ability to run highly trained army and navy bombers all through the DEI and along most trade routes) the Japanese probably shouldn't have so many cmanders with such high stats. After all, there are enough for great sub commanders to be placed on boats to the end of the war.
The sheer number of DDs in a hex shouldn't necessarily result in stopping all IJN subs getting through. I'm not sure the exact detection levels of sonar in terms of distance, but the more ships in area the more confused the sound field would be in terms of picking up subs. i know having read some Kane and others on the Pacific sub war there was a lot of confusion around about whose boats were whose when something was detected.
It may not matter how much is in hex in terms of finding subs. Killing them yes, but I think maxing out each TF with DDs (making them 15 ships in size) provides the best point defense against subs in a CV TF. Then some ASW around the edges and the air groups search/ASW. But that's it. Nothing else to be done.
My understanding of the Japanese submarine fleet is that they were like the Americans in that submariners were an exclusive and elite club; it was a high prestige, tight knit force. I think the generally high ratings of the commanders is probably merited.
The problem with Japanese submarines wasn't the leaders, it was the doctrine and the tactical use of them. Japanese submariners didn't grasp the potency that Allied ASW developed latter in the war (and that the Allies get, with upgrades and the crew EXP bonus). The Japanese submarine arm sat about for the decisive battle that it more or less fumbled (Midway) and then wasted away on glorified delivery missions in the Solomons.
In game terms, DL is key when dealing with subs. 15 DD's is great, but a bunch of floatplanes flying round the clock naval search and ASW is better.
|
Printable Version
RE: Canada and India invaded! - 
In '42 and into '43, I fear those damn Jap subs more than than KB. I've lost more CVs and BBs to subs than KB. 
Only word I have for this is silly. 
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