JFB's Own A/E

[HHI]

It was obvious that A/E was designed to satisfy the JFB crown. I don't have a real problem with this, as I think most of the really hard core WITP prefer to play the Japanese side. However, the Patch 02 Beta has really gone off the deep end. I have the following problems, which really seem outside the box.

1. U.S. pre-war battleships are utterly useless in surface battle. Although this was the case with WITP, then all suface battles were such a complete mess, it was irrelevant. However, surface battles are vastly improved and it is now relevant. Looking at the ship data base, the A/E team has really done it's homework, all looks well. Clearly, the problems have been created by the JFB crowd in the hard code experience. How did the IJN get so experienced? Shooting up junks in the China Sea, I suppose. In fact, the USN was a haven during the depression for thousands of men. The best of these went to the ships of the Battle Force. Gunnery was highly emphasized, with highly prized gunnery awards in annual competitions. Gunnery was excellent. In WW I, the USN thought it proficient in gunnery, but in service with elements of the Grand Fleet, found out it didn't match up with the RN. Things were quickly improved. Battleship range-finders were equipped with analog computers in 1918! Reconstruction was hampered during the inter-war period by lack of funding, but much was done. Granted, much that they wanted to do was not achievable, but the biggest problems were mitigated by blistering and additional armor was added to the decks, much of it STS. The weakest link remained, however, plunging fire, as engagements would be fought at much greater ranges than was possible when these ships were built. This problem could not be fully solved due to treatly limitations and weight problems, which resulted in inadequate free board. These were wet ships. However, the New Mexicos, the Tennessees and the Colorados were OK, if slow by IJN standards. All this, except the advantages of STS perhaps, are in the data base. Note that most surface battles are at night in A/E, where plunging fire is not a factor. The problem is in the experience, particularly night. Although the JFB's will point to the poor USN performance in the Slot as an example of USN night proficiency, that was not these crews. The Slot was torpedo alley, where the Long Lance was king. But I think the biggest IJN advantage was simply their binnoculars! They were far superior. None of this would necessarily apply in more open waters. These crews were very experienced. I think my father's experience was typical. He went to the New Mexico out of boot camp (then in Norfolk) in 1932 as a Seaman and left in 1941 as a Chief Gunners Mate to joint the Atlanta (whoops). Of course, I can't do anything about experience, it's JFB hard code. What I can do is use a ridiculous accuracy factor for the 16/45's and the 14/50's, which seems to help.

2. Submarines are the worst. The latest JFB change has made IJN subs undetectable by anything. Aircraft never hit them and destroyers can't find them. They now hang around major ports with complete impunity. The whole idea of the I-class sub as a first class weapon is a joke and even more preposterous as a commerce raider. Yes, the crews were excellent and the torpedo was superior. But the boat was too large, resulting in a submerged vessel that was noisy, a large Sonar target and a very limited dive depth of only 200 feet. These characteristics would not be a huge problem when attacking warships, which are generally traveling at high speed and zig-zagging. Hydrophones are almost useless and Sonar is compromised. As a commerce raider, the convoy speeds are slow, making a large, noisy boat easily detected and the limited dive depth lethal, as the boat can't get under the thermals, so necessary to avoid Sonar tracking. Most I-class boats from I-6 on carry a seaplane. Talk about noise and limited dive depth. What a farce! Unlike other JFB hard code scams, I can't find a way around this one. I tried reducing the durability from 36, I think, to 5. Very reasonable, I think, considering the limited dive depth. But, what difference does that make, when you can't attack the sub to start with. Next, I went to the DD/DE/SC data base to put late war sonar on the early DD's. What! Sonar isn't a device! We got every damn radar device known to man, but no sonar. The so-called ASW capability is nothing but the sum of the launchers on board. Since I obviously play against the Japanese A/I, the game has become much less a war game and more a game of trying to defeat the JFB hard coders. I've lost this one.

3. I love the new pilot training routines. They are a blast, although I still have no idea what the colors mean. But, somehow, I suspect that this is nothing more than another JFB scam, since they have numerous very experienced pilots to start with and can create numerous training units.

[Terminus]

Nothing has been done to make US battleships artificially bad or IJN submarines artificially good. Nothing you say will change that.

[Dixie]

[John Lansford]

IJN subs will be detected and attacked by ASW ships with experienced crews.  If the crew of the ASW ship has low experience, your only response is to put as many of them together in a TF and hope one of them gets lucky and finds the sub.  I've got USN and RN ASW TF's now that can detect (and react to) a sub, with a reasonable chance of getting a hit when they attack.  Even the numerous Aussie minesweepers are effective ASW platforms if you put 3-5 of them in a TF and keep them where ASW search planes are sweeping for subs. 
 
The new patch does seem to make the IJN subs more aggressive; I've had attacks from subs against escorted TF's now, when before the patch all it took was one ASW platform to keep the sub from making an attack no matter how big the TF was.

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: HHI
It was obvious that A/E was designed to satisfy the JFB crown. I don't have a real problem with this, as I think most of the really hard core WITP prefer to play the Japanese side.

[:D][:D][:D]Have you noticed that the durability of the early war Betty is the same as the late war Betty? 36 for all models.
I thought the RL early war Betty would catch fire on a warm day if left out in the sun too long. Nels are almost as durable as Bettys.[:D]

[fabertong]

I'm with you Dixie..........I love the 'tongue in cheek' posts the best.......

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: HHI

It was obvious that A/E was designed to satisfy the JFB crown. I don't have a real problem with this, as I think most of the really hard core WITP prefer to play the Japanese side. However, the Patch 02 Beta has really gone off the deep end. I have the following problems, which really seem outside the box.

1. U.S. pre-war battleships are utterly useless in surface battle. Although this was the case with WITP, then all suface battles were such a complete mess, it was irrelevant. However, surface battles are vastly improved and it is now relevant. Looking at the ship data base, the A/E team has really done it's homework, all looks well. Clearly, the problems have been created by the JFB crowd in the hard code experience. How did the IJN get so experienced? Shooting up junks in the China Sea, I suppose. In fact, the USN was a haven during the depression for thousands of men. The best of these went to the ships of the Battle Force. Gunnery was highly emphasized, with highly prized gunnery awards in annual competitions. Gunnery was excellent. In WW I, the USN thought it proficient in gunnery, but in service with elements of the Grand Fleet, found out it didn't match up with the RN. Things were quickly improved. Battleship range-finders were equipped with analog computers in 1918! Reconstruction was hampered during the inter-war period by lack of funding, but much was done. Granted, much that they wanted to do was not achievable, but the biggest problems were mitigated by blistering and additional armor was added to the decks, much of it STS. The weakest link remained, however, plunging fire, as engagements would be fought at much greater ranges than was possible when these ships were built. This problem could not be fully solved due to treatly limitations and weight problems, which resulted in inadequate free board. These were wet ships. However, the New Mexicos, the Tennessees and the Colorados were OK, if slow by IJN standards. All this, except the advantages of STS perhaps, are in the data base. Note that most surface battles are at night in A/E, where plunging fire is not a factor. The problem is in the experience, particularly night. Although the JFB's will point to the poor USN performance in the Slot as an example of USN night proficiency, that was not these crews. The Slot was torpedo alley, where the Long Lance was king. But I think the biggest IJN advantage was simply their binnoculars! They were far superior. None of this would necessarily apply in more open waters. These crews were very experienced. I think my father's experience was typical. He went to the New Mexico out of boot camp (then in Norfolk) in 1932 as a Seaman and left in 1941 as a Chief Gunners Mate to joint the Atlanta (whoops). Of course, I can't do anything about experience, it's JFB hard code. What I can do is use a ridiculous accuracy factor for the 16/45's and the 14/50's, which seems to help.

2. Submarines are the worst. The latest JFB change has made IJN subs undetectable by anything. Aircraft never hit them and destroyers can't find them. They now hang around major ports with complete impunity. The whole idea of the I-class sub as a first class weapon is a joke and even more preposterous as a commerce raider. Yes, the crews were excellent and the torpedo was superior. But the boat was too large, resulting in a submerged vessel that was noisy, a large Sonar target and a very limited dive depth of only 200 feet. These characteristics would not be a huge problem when attacking warships, which are generally traveling at high speed and zig-zagging. Hydrophones are almost useless and Sonar is compromised. As a commerce raider, the convoy speeds are slow, making a large, noisy boat easily detected and the limited dive depth lethal, as the boat can't get under the thermals, so necessary to avoid Sonar tracking. Most I-class boats from I-6 on carry a seaplane. Talk about noise and limited dive depth. What a farce! Unlike other JFB hard code scams, I can't find a way around this one. I tried reducing the durability from 36, I think, to 5. Very reasonable, I think, considering the limited dive depth. But, what difference does that make, when you can't attack the sub to start with. Next, I went to the DD/DE/SC data base to put late war sonar on the early DD's. What! Sonar isn't a device! We got every damn radar device known to man, but no sonar. The so-called ASW capability is nothing but the sum of the launchers on board. Since I obviously play against the Japanese A/I, the game has become much less a war game and more a game of trying to defeat the JFB hard coders. I've lost this one.

3. I love the new pilot training routines. They are a blast, although I still have no idea what the colors mean. But, somehow, I suspect that this is nothing more than another JFB scam, since they have numerous very experienced pilots to start with and can create numerous training units.

I wonder how long you will last in these forums ... [8D]

[canuck64]

[:D]

Timely.

[Chickenboy]

Wow, I get to use my green dot TWICE in as many days! Thank you Matrix for this device that lets me reduce the misguided ramblings of pseudopsychotics to so much background white noise.

Ahhh....white noise.....

[Djordje]

IJN trained hard for night combat before the war started. USN did not, that is the reason for starting difference in night experience. In time USN will catch up in night experience and get efficient radars and will become stronger, but you can't expect it in the first few months of the game.

For subs problem you need to do it what was done in real life - cover all sea routes with search planes, and they have to be experienced. Again it takes time to train them.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wow, I get to use my green dot TWICE in as many days! Thank you Matrix for this device that lets me reduce the misguided ramblings of pseudopsychotics to so much background white noise.

Ahhh....white noise.....

The rant is so familiar one wonders if it is a multi-login troll repeating itself.......[8|]

[KenchiSulla]

Wait, wait... I smell something...

What is it... hmm... yes... yes, I think I know what I smell.... I think it is...


DRAMA

[fabertong]

Hi Guys....lighten up.....I've read the first post three times now......and it just get's funnier and funnier.........it's just someone having a laugh......

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Hi Guys....lighten up.....I've read the first post three times now......and it just get's funnier and funnier.........it's just someone having a laugh......

I hope so. [8|]

[morganbj]

Well, I'm going to comment on the OP's concerns directly.
 
I, too, notice that allied BB's (I always play the allied side) usually take the short end of the stick, but by mid 43, the results seem about equal.  I also seem to be able to shuttle my BB's back to repair and refit with little difficulty, so I always have enough on-station to meet most of my needs.  I Don't think this is terribly inaccurate or ahistorical.  Surface combat MAY be a little too frequent, but someone else will have to comment on that.
 
Yes, the Japanese subs are a pain in the patoot.  But, I seldom lose a warship to them.  My AM's get about a 1 to 1 ratio of kills to losses, and my DD's do quite a bit better.  The DE's can be VERY effective at ASW, so I use them all I can to keep the approaches to major ports clear.  Most SC's are excellent in this regard, too.  I usually send large suply/fuel TF's from only a small number of ports, so I can keep the area well patrolled.  And, if I need something from a port that I know has those little pests waiting, I'll use enough escorts to keep the damage to a minimum.  Escorting really seems to reduce losses.  My only complaint is that the Japanese subs seem to always go for merchant shipping, even if warships are in the hex.  This might not be true, but it seems so.
 
I, of course, have no real knowledge of what's going on with the pilot training system for the Japanese.  I DO know that as time goes by, the ratio of kiils to losses dramatically shifts in my favor.  This certainly is from better aircraft, but I suspect that there is some significant degrading of Japanese pilot effectiveness, as well.
 
So, the OP's comments are not without some truth, but I don't think the built-in biases are as he suggests.  The biases that are hard to accept reside with the AI, regardless of who the AI is.  I've read that the AI uses supply much less than the human, and that it gets a bonus in quantity.  I've also read that the AI gets extra airframes, too.  I suspect that this must be true since I've kiiled thousands of aircraft, but they just keep coming.
 
The point is, though, that the human player is smarter than the AI, so a few cheats are appropriate.  I just wish we knew exactly what they are.  I would also hope that the cheats are not so draconian as to make good human strategy meaningless.  (Like giving the KB unlimited sorties.)  If the allied player can't isolate a garrison and eventually have it lose its efectiveness, instead, it just lives on unaffected, then that's too much.
 
But, AE is a damn fine game that is a lot of fun to play.  I don't think it's got anywhere near the problems that some seem to think.  It actually seems to work out about right, historically, so far as I can tell.  After all, isn't having fun the whole idea?

[Terminus]

He's kidding.

[LoBaron]

I had to stop after the first two sentences, lack of paragraphs makes my old eyes water.

But I assume from the reactions he´s talking about recent proof of the Hollow World Theory?

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I had to stop after the first two sentences, lack of paragraphs makes my old eyes water.

But I assume from the reactions he´s talking about recent proof of the Hollow World Theory?

Could be the Flat earth theory to be honest. I gave up after the initial JFB comment [:D]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I had to stop after the first two sentences, lack of paragraphs makes my old eyes water.

But I assume from the reactions he´s talking about recent proof of the Hollow World Theory?

Could be the Flat earth theory to be honest. I gave up after the initial JFB comment [:D]

Well whatever shape was proven, at least we all know earth is divided into hex fields.
I hope you are downloading the patch old buddy? [:D]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I had to stop after the first two sentences, lack of paragraphs makes my old eyes water.

But I assume from the reactions he´s talking about recent proof of the Hollow World Theory?

Could be the Flat earth theory to be honest. I gave up after the initial JFB comment [:D]

Now, I don't know. I am leaning more and more toward the penguin's view: surely anyone who can write with such dramatic flair and spell analog correctly (that is correct isn't it? [:D]) would never produce such total drivel as a SERIOUS post; it must be a joke.