The all seeing eye of Glen

[Brady]

In a New Game I am playing my apponet has lost two Glen's in just under two months of play time, one to flack and one to Operations, in comparasion he has lost 4 Daves (all to flack) 6 Jakes (3 Flack, One ground and 2 OP's). Comparing the relatively tiny Number of Glens to these other types would sugest that they are suffering a much higher atration rate.

.........

Of course they made the game so you can tweak things, and players can make what ever house rules they want to goveren whatever aspect of the game they think is screwey. To me this one is realy prety silly. At least compared to my pet peaves about the Stock game, But as my sig sugests I am not an allied fan boy.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The AI uses them to spot TFs coming in and out of port. It really likes to crowd all its subs in the aforementioned area, so that's where I usually see Glen sightings. And, yes, I have had a few TFs spotted at sea by them, normally the ones taking WITP's Great Barrier Reef Inside Passage.

(note to AB or any aussie in the know... is this a true to life nautical feature or does the coastal shipping between eastern Australian ports run on the outside of the reef?)

In the case of the AI, it needs all the help it can get i'm sure, but, then again, if it's using them in an area that normally is patrolled by other similar planes, it's wasting it's advantage. You might not had been looking for it, but isn't it true that those same ships were spotted by other search planes, and therefore using the Glen in a poor manner?

Oh, skip that, I think I know what you're talking about now, but putting Glens around high traffic Allied ports is almost as foolish, as we IJN guys think that the Glen draws ships a lot more then it spots anything, such that it's best function, assuming it ever works, is to spot convoys in the shipping routes away from large Allied ports.

[bradfordkay]

My guess is that Glen losses (other than operational - which may be coded to be higher than most a/c) will depend upon the player's use of the subs. If he's off in the vast pacific between teh US west coast and Hawaii, they'll be very low. If he's scouting heavily defended ports (for some reason the Glen pilots cannot seem to stay away from the ports), he's going to lose some. These are areas that often have a lot of planes flying; new squadrons training up, old squadrons rebuilding, and other squadrons just waiting to move up into the line as replacements for worn out squadrons).

[bradfordkay]

"In the case of the AI, it needs all the help it can get i'm sure, but, then again, if it's using them in an area that normally is patrolled by other similar planes, it's wasting it's advantage. You might not had been looking for it, but isn't it true that those same ships were spotted by other search planes, and therefore using the Glen in a poor manner?"

Naw, I enjoy watching the turn play out and tend to notice what type of aircraft is doing the spotting. I'm pretty anal about watching the turns play out - it's why my games move so slowly (that, and all the time I spend here). I keep a little notebook tracking things like where the carriers are spotted, which subs have been attacked, what new major units I've received, what bases expanded and what enemy units or plans have been exposed by signals intelligence.


EDIT: sorry, this was written before you edited your post... maybe time to take a break from the forum!

[Charles2222]

Be aware that I later appended that last post, as I realized you weren't talking about them patrolling their own port areas and that your ships were spotted there frequently. So it would seem that the main point of Allies wanting the Glen dealt with isn't real smart, if they're using them the way you suggest (the AI anyway), because they're in areas where they reveal themsleves easily. An annoyance to be sure, but despite there being no Glen to annoy me, the AI PI subs annoy the sea to the north like it's going out of style. The Glens are making the AI opponent that much easier, just like the PI subs gathered together, not harder.

[Brady]

All this does raise an interesting question though, and I must admit I havent a clue as to the answer, I know what it should be but in the game.....: How does weather efect sea plane operations in general? Does certain weather Stop Sea Plane operations from all types of ships?, and or does it efect the OP lose likelyhood? Or the damage likelyhood?, and Yes Glens could be reparied/maintained while on the sub.

[Charles2222]

I'm not sure of the durability rating of the Glen compared to other IJ planes, but it would seem the correct rating for that would cover all concerns.

[bradfordkay]

I'd tend to agree that seaplanes shouldn't be able to operate at sea in a thunderstorm/blizzard hex from SSs, AVs, BBs, BCs, CAs or CLs. Maybe someone can come up with evidence that they were regularly used in those conditions, at sea - not from a ship at anchor, and convince me otherwise...

[Charles2222]

I think getting back to one of my earlier thoughts is the real problem. the Allied players aren't mad because the Glen has abilities allegedly beyond what they were capable of, but that the Allies don't have a similar way of doing the same thing. Meaning, that they cannot do any recon with a sub, which all subs should be able to do to some extent.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'd tend to agree that seaplanes shouldn't be able to operate at sea in a thunderstorm/blizzard hex from SSs, AVs, BBs, BCs, CAs or CLs. Maybe someone can come up with evidence that they were regularly used in those conditions, at sea - not from a ship at anchor, and convince me otherwise...

Yeahhhhh, but if the Glen was susceptible to bad weather, then that ought to affect the durability rating then shouldn't it? IOW, if the durability is poor enough so many of them will be lost to ops their role will be that much less, and the IJN player will be forced to use them less.

[spence]

If he's off in the vast pacific between teh US west coast and Hawaii, they'll be very low.

This is the worst case of Glenn survivability. So far in a PBEM my opp (Japan) has had a sub with a Glenn a few hexes out of San Francisco for the last 2 months. They have conducted daily search missions all that time and none have been lost to operational causes nor have they been intercepted by the CAP over San Francisco (which they scout regularly). From first hand experience seaplanes experience A LOT of structural stress taking off and landing on water; even relatively calm sheltered water.
Though I imagine the sub could replace the left handed twizzle stick or some such on a Glenn there is no way that truly decent maintenance could be accomplished on a submarine on the high seas. There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc; and real life always works so that the thing that breaks is the thing that you have no spares of. Reading the TROMs on Combined Fleet.com it surely seems that once a Glenn (if embarked at all) got damaged that was the end of its usefulness.

A Glen was the only Axis plane to bomb the continental United States during the war

OK let them do bombing of ports, airfields and cities as well as recon. I only find their ability to repeatedly launch and recover without wearing out on the high seas to be objectionable.

[el cid again]

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...

Too drastic for me - Glens managed recon PRE and POST Pearl Harbor attack for example - nevertheless you are quite correct: the Glen is too powerful. One problem is its durability is grossly overstated - it is stronger than an E13 for example - and its altitude is too great - and other similar things. So one solution is to simply give it the correct values.

But that is not enough: the Glen could not fly in all weather conditions. So the rule number 2 is a good idea - except maybe hard to play - and also not restrictive enough. How about a die roll? A real die roll - you do have a die right? Since weather is average over an area - we might just ignore the weather on the map and die roll for local conditions only. In that case you have to roll a 9 to fly. IF you fly in clear weather zones only (meaning you check every glen for where it is re weather) - then you have to roll a 7, 8 or 9 to fly.

[el cid again]

There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc;

Actually, IJN was the best operator of aircraft from submarines. Not entirely surprisingly, this is related to spare parts. The big subs carried an ENTIRE EXTRA plane as spare parts - all of them - they could build a plane from them. The regular subs with Glens carried a respectable number of spares - and the plane crew included a mechanic - who also flew as observer most of the time (unless the Glen carried bombs - as it did over Oregon).

[Charles2222]

Yes, some of the IJN subs were enormous and easier to detect for a reason.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: spence

If he's off in the vast pacific between teh US west coast and Hawaii, they'll be very low.

This is the worst case of Glenn survivability. So far in a PBEM my opp (Japan) has had a sub with a Glenn a few hexes out of San Francisco for the last 2 months. They have conducted daily search missions all that time and none have been lost to operational causes nor have they been intercepted by the CAP over San Francisco (which they scout regularly). From first hand experience seaplanes experience A LOT of structural stress taking off and landing on water; even relatively calm sheltered water.
Though I imagine the sub could replace the left handed twizzle stick or some such on a Glenn there is no way that truly decent maintenance could be accomplished on a submarine on the high seas. There simply is not any extra space on a sub for spares,etc; and real life always works so that the thing that breaks is the thing that you have no spares of. Reading the TROMs on Combined Fleet.com it surely seems that once a Glenn (if embarked at all) got damaged that was the end of its usefulness.

You might note that my post differentiated between Operational losses (which I think should maybe be a bit higher for sub launched floatplanes) and combat losses. It was the latter that I said should be much lower in the vastness of the open sea, as opposed to losses over port areas.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)[:D]

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...

I love the Glen. It gives my opponent ulcers.[:D]

[denisonh]

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon


One of my opponents (my brother) and I have been discussing the IJN Glen equipped subs. These subs using naval search in the game give the Japanese player a strategic intelligence advantage over the Allied player. This seems completely at odds with the historical strategic intelligence situation.

In that light we have been discussing house rules to limit the air search capabilities of these subs. I thought the input of the community would be helpful in hammering something out. So far we have two ideas and welcome comments and suggestions on these or other house rule options.

1. Sub based Glens can only conduct naval search when stationed in coastal and atoll hexes. Recon flights can be made from any hex.

2.Only 2 Glens based on subs can conduct naval searches in one turn and only in clear weather zones.

These rules are ether or, both would not be used.

Thanks in advance for your ideas and opinions.

From an historical perspective, the Glen is overrated in the game. I would agree that some limits need to be placed upon it. I think the agreement to reduce operations to coastal and atoll hexes or in hexes with a "clear" weather prediction is appropriate. The number of sorties should not be restricted to 2 though.

As an additional option, I would be sorely tempted to reduce the durability of the plane drastically so that ops losses on patrol approximated the losses that would be received IRL. I would also probably reduce the radius of action to 2 or 3 by reducing the endurance.

Putting the plane up in clear skies and calm seas or in a protected bay should be possible on a fairly regular basis. Those aircraft did not consume huge amounts of fuel and as long as operations were conducted in calm conditions with a relatively small action radius, then the Glen had enough fuel for plenty of sorties. It was a small plane, with a small engine, and likely did not burn excessive amounts of fuel. There are records of Glens making repeated recon flights from the same sub on a single patrol.

[Feinder]

There are plenty of things you could do to improve the historical accuracy of WitP, "tweaking" the mission constraints (or whatever) for Glens could be one of them.

But to be perfectly frank, the Glen isn't worth worrying about. It's not a game breaker. Yes, it's annoying that he sorta "snoop" Noumea to see if that damaged CV went there, or to Aukland. But over-all, the quality of the intel from the Glen is marginal at best, and it might just as likely report that a CA is parked there.

As a mostly Allied player, I rather find that when Japan uses them as "tripwires" to be rather clever. I don't mind it at all.

Whatever.

To each his own.

But it's far more likely that the Allied player will simply make a mistake that had a crucial impact on your game; than for your Glen subs to actually spot the Allied CVs, and then you happen to set up the ambush and win a complete victory.

Glens are fun little toys. But for play "balance" purposes (seems that's what your indicating), they're not half the threat, and certainly not worth the effort that many folks put into restricting them.

But if you want to play closer to "historical accuracy" create all the house rules you like.

-F-

[IS2m]

ORIGINAL: Brady



Seams to me most glens get shot down fairly easly, rendering the subs that cary them and only one "sol" and far from home. Also a lot of the time the single plane misses convoys entirely that are withen it's operational patrole zone. Any sightings it makes are realy lucky ones.

Thier are several examples of their use to recon objectives priour to atacks made by Japan, many of which were not even noticed by the Allies.

And as stated by many before and shurley many to come, if you use a tool in the game in maner inconsistant with how it was used during the war your going to get results that are inconsistant with history. Thier are so many things that are so whacked in this game that this pales to insignafagance, being far closer to reality than many other aspects in terms of use and capabalitys.

During my now-abandoned game against YamatoHugger, I only succeeded in bringing down one Glen in 2 or 3 months.

Glens were routinely recceing every important base from LA to Calcutta. The straits between Australia and Tasmania were under observation, as were other important narrows. I had a ftr squadron at each base under observation, and several ASW groups looking for Glen boats. I tried changing the altitude of my fighters on a regular basis, but the little buggers always got through.

I don't really have a problem with Glens, except that they are very hard to catch. I realize that they will occasionally be able to slip into a place undetected, but they routinely made fools of the pilots who were specifically sent after them.

PS: Does anyone know what happened to YH? He just dropped off the face of the earth.