Is it wise to set all facilities to expand at start?

[Shark7]

Japanese sub doctrine historically was to fire on warships first and foremost. They were discouraged, not forbidden, from firing on merchant ships unless no other more high value targets were present. When they did fire on merchants, most Japanese sub skippers would only fire 1 torpedo.

So attacking merchants is not a-historical, but they should be stingy with torpedos when they do.

[dasboot1960]

I believe there was an actual diktat of 'so many torps for this type, so many for that'perhaps doctrine is the wrong word - in reading the history it certainly doesn't seem they made any great effort go for transports. Maybe they were just viewed individually as 'unworthy'.

[arras]

They were not considered "unworthy". Submarines had their place in Japanese war plan. And as such their use was perfectly logical and justified from their point of view. Japanese knew that they would be against much larger and powerful opponent in case of war against USA and their European allies. Plan was to let bigger US fleet to come to Japanese home waters and use submarines, aircraft (both island based and carrier based) and other cheap secondary units to attack and weaken that main US fleet on the way, to the extend that main Japanese force could then fight even match with it. Thats why they have put such an effort in to torpedoes bye the way. To use submarines against supply ships was from this point of view simply wasting of scarce resources.

This was perfectly logical and those who say that Japan used their submarines inefficiently should take in mind, that even if they would release them on lines of supply, Japan would still lose war. Why would they then use them in way which would still bring defeat? Germans tried this with much greater assets and still lost.

Also remember that at the beginning of conflict Japanese submarines were highly successful in their intended role. They managed to sink several large US warships including 2 large aircraft carriers. How many US carriers were sunk during war? If you consider that, loss of those 2 carriers stands in altogether different light.

Japanese were no fools, certainly head of Combined Fleet Isoroku Yamamoto wasn't as is evident from his remarks about future war with USA.

Once their initial plan did not brought victory, they were probably doomed anyway. Sure they shoved striking inflexibility in altering their plans after first one failed but question really is, if there was something they could do to prevent defeat. Especially if you know that USA were on the way to develop atomic bomb. Once equipped with A-bomb, it did not really mattered which island and what base is in Japanese hands. They could posses whole Australia and whole India, war was lost. Even if USA would not develop bomb ...with defeat of Axis in Europe, Japan stud no chance against combined US, British and Russian force. Remember what happened to Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea? And those forces where hardly touched when Russian attack came.

So really, were Japanese so stupid in how they employed their submarines?

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: arras

They were not considered "unworthy". Submarines had their place in Japanese war plan. And as such their use was perfectly logical and justified from their point of view. Japanese knew that they would be against much larger and powerful opponent in case of war against USA and their European allies. Plan was to let bigger US fleet to come to Japanese home waters and use submarines, aircraft (both island based and carrier based) and other cheap secondary units to attack and weaken that main US fleet on the way, to the extend that main Japanese force could then fight even match with it. Thats why they have put such an effort in to torpedoes bye the way. To use submarines against supply ships was from this point of view simply wasting of scarce resources.

This was perfectly logical and those who say that Japan used their submarines inefficiently should take in mind, that even if they would release them on lines of supply, Japan would still lose war. Why would they then use them in way which would still bring defeat? Germans tried this with much greater assets and still lost.

Also remember that at the beginning of conflict Japanese submarines were highly successful in their intended role. They managed to sink several large US warships including 2 large aircraft carriers. How many US carriers were sunk during war? If you consider that, loss of those 2 carriers stands in altogether different light.

Japanese were no fools, certainly head of Combined Fleet Isoroku Yamamoto wasn't as is evident from his remarks about future war with USA.

Once their initial plan did not brought victory, they were probably doomed anyway. Sure they shoved striking inflexibility in altering their plans after first one failed but question really is, if there was something they could do to prevent defeat. Especially if you know that USA were on the way to develop atomic bomb. Once equipped with A-bomb, it did not really mattered which island and what base is in Japanese hands. They could posses whole Australia and whole India, war was lost. Even if USA would not develop bomb ...with defeat of Axis in Europe, Japan stud no chance against combined US, British and Russian force. Remember what happened to Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea? And those forces where hardly touched when Russian attack came.

So really, were Japanese so stupid in how they employed their submarines?

Truth be told, we all have hindsight. We can look at it objectively and see the best way to stave off the invasion of the Home Islands is to sink the transports that bring the troops to the gates of the city (so to speak). And there is truth in that. You can have 1000 aircraft carriers with 10000 aircraft, but if you can't land troops you still can't subjugate Japan.

In 5000 years of recorded history, only 1 constant remains true...its the infantry that take and hold territory.

Armed with that knowledge, most of us JFBs turn our subs loose in the convoy lanes, where we get the most bang for buck. And even there you will occasionally catch a BB or CV transiting (the day against the AI I got Saratoga with a Type 95 and a Fuel explosion was a great day for the IJN sub fleet). The convoy lanes also happen to be the main transit lanes for the navy as well...so it just makes sense to do as much damage there as possible. An added benefit is that if your opponant is having to ASW patrol his own coast line, he isn't harrassing your shipping with those ships.

All in all when it comes to subs, best bet is 'Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war!'.

[Mynok]

I still use them as screening forces a decent amount, especially the Glen boats.

[arras]

Shark7 >> I did refer to historical events not to this game. Use of the jap subs in this game is for obvious reasons altogether different story. This game gives you possibility to win by dealing USA for long enough. That is historically unrealistic of course.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I still use them as screening forces a decent amount, especially the Glen boats.

The Glen boats are very usefull for scouting. You probably don't want to get them into well patrol convoy lanes, but put them in areas where they can spot for the other subs.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

I gotcha , so what do you guys recommend? Do a majority of players do it one way, or the other way? Or is it split 50-50?

I will pretty universally expand fortifications in nearly all bases where I can.

If AE is like WiTP in allocation of engineering squads and equipment, expanding all three (bases, port, forts) will 'dilute' the engineers' ability to build forts more quickly, as their limited efforts are expended elsewhere. For this reason (as well as supply issues), I am selective with my port and AF expansion programs early in the game. I don't use the button.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Scotters1976

I gotcha , so what do you guys recommend? Do a majority of players do it one way, or the other way? Or is it split 50-50?

I will pretty universally expand fortifications in nearly all bases where I can.

If AE is like WiTP in allocation of engineering squads and equipment, expanding all three (bases, port, forts) will 'dilute' the engineers' ability to build forts more quickly, as their limited efforts are expended elsewhere. For this reason (as well as supply issues), I am selective with my port and AF expansion programs early in the game. I don't use the button.

While it probably doesn't hurt to expand the forts on most of all bases, with the way air and naval works in AE, it is probably not advantageous to expand every Airfield or port. Maintaining the airframes and keeping them in good supply means having to keep the airgroups near HQs.