A Day in the Life of a Disputer

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

1. Strategic Bombing in China: Impossible to defend/easy for the Japanese to wipe out. This means difficult/impossible for the Chinese to replace losses/recover disrupted units and essentially impossible to utilize fighters in China through at least early '43 (damaged planes don't get repaired and can't be moved meaning that fighters get one or two sorties in and then those planes are stuck in a damaged state at a forward base forever unless you disband them). Fix: House Rule preventing strategic bombing in China until 1944.

IIRC this one was addressed for games started under a later patch/hotfix than that under which your game was started.

[Rob Brennan UK]

I have lost enough ASW assets to subs and Rob Brennan, my opponent, too that I really think there is a glitch in the
sub attack routines. Maybe when the Allied/Japanese sub doctrine options where put out of the game, the code now
leans too much to the old Japanese sub doctrine, who knows.
As far as I can see there are two things that should be toned down in combination: the frequency of attacks on ASW assets
and the hit percentage of torps against those vessels.

Dont think i've hit a DD with a working Torp yet LoBaron [;)], yes a few 4 ish PB's have been sunk in a month and a half. and i have a lot of subs patrolling round .. sub losses have been slight (1) lost to a mine at truk when it reacted in. But many have been damaged and out of action for weeks because of DC's. My only AS is a long way behind the front (for obvious reasons) and i dont get another [:(] so patrol times are shorter. Yes Sydney can repair them pretty quick but getting them to sydney takes a long time esp with high flooding (v slow repairs at forward bases).

RE the percieved japanese sub doctine. I have v v few transport TF's anywhere(i love waypoints <hint>) and a LOT of 4 ship ASW groups based on a few DD's and lots of AM's and SC's. Hence the only readily available targets to agressive commanders are ASW assets. (lost a few AM's but no DD's yet).

Neither side had had (imo) imbalanced ASW or sub effectiveness , but those I boats are accurate as hell when they do sight a valuable target. USS Saratoga's surviving crew can attest to that effectiveness (3 hits in one salvo). And no I'm not complaining about it. Yes i has 2 ASW groups following and lots of integral DD's in the TF , LoBaon got a lucky attack (bastard [;)]) and I can live with it as thats just the unpredictability of war.

CanoeRebel - love the OP v v funny and i'm hijacker 2 for referance purposes [;)] and a sceptic at heart too if i'm honest.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

I have lost enough ASW assets to subs and Rob Brennan, my opponent, too that I really think there is a glitch in the
sub attack routines. Maybe when the Allied/Japanese sub doctrine options where put out of the game, the code now
leans too much to the old Japanese sub doctrine, who knows.
As far as I can see there are two things that should be toned down in combination: the frequency of attacks on ASW assets
and the hit percentage of torps against those vessels.

Dont think i've hit a DD with a working Torp yet LoBaron [;)], yes a few 4 ish PB's have been sunk in a month and a half. and i have a lot of subs patrolling round .. sub losses have been slight (1) lost to a mine at truk when it reacted in. But many have been damaged and out of action for weeks because of DC's. My only AS is a long way behind the front (for obvious reasons) and i dont get another [:(] so patrol times are shorter. Yes Sydney can repair them pretty quick but getting them to sydney takes a long time esp with high flooding (v slow repairs at forward bases).

RE the percieved japanese sub doctine. I have v v few transport TF's anywhere(i love waypoints <hint>) and a LOT of 4 ship ASW groups based on a few DD's and lots of AM's and SC's. Hence the only readily available targets to agressive commanders are ASW assets. (lost a few AM's but no DD's yet).

Neither side had had (imo) imbalanced ASW or sub effectiveness , but those I boats are accurate as hell when they do sight a valuable target. USS Saratoga's surviving crew can attest to that effectiveness (3 hits in one salvo). And no I'm not complaining about it. Yes i has 2 ASW groups following and lots of integral DD's in the TF , LoBaon got a lucky attack (bastard [;)]) and I can live with it as thats just the unpredictability of war.

CanoeRebel - love the OP v v funny and i'm hijacker 2 for referance purposes [;)] and a sceptic at heart too if i'm honest.

Personally I'm seeing plenty of attacks against escorted merchant ships, as well as the escorts. I've also had lots of my own ships hit without explosion (the USN Torps). We're all getting different results which is to be expected. Just need to take a median of the results and that will tell us if there is a problem.

BTW, I think I'm a new skeptic...Skeptic Sixteen: 'I don't doubt you are seeing skewed results, but I'm just not seeing it myself in my own games.' [;)]

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
BTW, I think I'm a new skeptic...Skeptic Sixteen: 'I don't doubt you are seeing skewed results, but I'm just not seeing it myself in my own games.' [;)]

Oh yeah, that needs to be in there. I've added it!

[SuluSea]

How could you forget- "You complain to cover weaknesses in your own gameplay." [:'(]

[Who Cares]

More truth I have never seen in 1 post. I'm surprised it hasn't been locked and you banned for it yet.

[Central Blue]

further proof of my theory that the same 25 people inhabit all known internet forums, with some having multiple personalities.

I think you are missing the peace maker/voice of reason, as well as my own roll:

Gee, I'm not having any problems against the AI. [:D]

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
further proof of my theory that the same 25 people inhabit all known internet forums, with some having multiple personalities.

I think you are missing the peace maker/voice of reason, as well as my own roll:

Gee, I'm not having any problems against the AI. [:D]

Nope, that one's in there.

[crsutton]

Well, the real problem is that nobody else is seeing the whacked out results that you are. I suspect that Miller is hacking your computer.[:D]

But in confirmation to a lesser degree I am seeing the same results.

1. I have lost too many escorts to subs. My Canadian KVs seem to have a bulls eye on them. But it has not been as excessive and Canoerebel's. And my opponents have lost much fewer subs than Miller suggesting that they are not as reckless. Now that my American subs have radar and are more aggressive, they are attacking more often. (With wooden torpedoes, I might add [8|]) I am seeing that they target escorts way to much rather than the valuable merchants when facing an escorted convoy. Otherwise, when I get some torpedoes, I should do some killing.

3. I am starting to get a bit nervous about Japanese ASW efforts. Not excessive yet but I am losing too many subs. Early in the game I used them in high risk situations but an not doing so now. Too early to really tell. My subs have air search radar. The frenquency of air attacks should lessen. Although, I will admit they don't hit me much.

4. My ASW efforts seem to be about right. I am sinking and damaging Japanese subs at an acceptible rate. However, I don't think my air is doing much but it is too early in the game and they still need training.

Question is, has anybody experienced similar results to Canoerebel? This is important because there has to be a definitive pattern.

[Canoerebel]

There is another anomaly in my game that I've mentioned many times:&nbsp; Allied ASW has been pretty week, but Allied combat TFs with DDs have been very effective.&nbsp; Try it - send nice juicy combat TFs (CA/CL/DD) into hexes with Japanese subs and see what happens.&nbsp; 75% to 90% of my sub kills over the past six to nine months of game time have been by combat TFs.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
further proof of my theory that the same 25 people inhabit all known internet forums, with some having multiple personalities.

I think you are missing the peace maker/voice of reason, as well as my own roll:

Gee, I'm not having any problems against the AI. [:D]

Nope, that one's in there.

Oh.

Well then, how about the guy that can't read and is always making spurious and extraneous comments just behind or off the topic? [;)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
further proof of my theory that the same 25 people inhabit all known internet forums, with some having multiple personalities.

I think you are missing the peace maker/voice of reason, as well as my own roll:

Gee, I'm not having any problems against the AI. [:D]

Nope, that one's in there.

Oh.

Well then, how about the guy that can't read and is always making spurious and extraneous comments just behind or off the topic? [;)]

Kinda like the guy that comes in and says:

'ASW isn't working right...BTW, I like cheese. Does every one prefer Cheddar or Swiss?'

[:D][:D][:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Kinda like the guy that comes in and says:

'ASW isn't working right...BTW, I like cheese. Does every one prefer Cheddar or Swiss?'

[:D][:D][:D]

That's no Gouda!

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Perhaps a lot of the sceptical responses are generated by the tone the Disputer uses as much as the content of his observations.

Another possibility is his tendency to think (or write as though he thinks) that the single data point of his one PBeM game is enough basis for making definitive conclusions about the state of WitP:AE.

100% agree.

Canoerebel refuses to accept any suggestion that the combination of his tactics and strategy, his opponents's tactics and strategies, and game mechanics WAD won't always add up to favorable combat results. Instead, he blames the game for his losses, loudly claiming to have found a "genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed". The complete lack of corroborating evidence from other players doesn't faze him; he dismisses all those who disagree as "complainers" who "don't like him", as he continues to post his daily episodes of "Whine in the Pacific: Angst Edition".

Canoerebel, you have beaten this "dead horse" so much it's bones have been ground into dust. Could you please just stop the constant complaining?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There is another anomaly in my game that I've mentioned many times:  Allied ASW has been pretty week, but Allied combat TFs with DDs have been very effective.  Try it - send nice juicy combat TFs (CA/CL/DD) into hexes with Japanese subs and see what happens.  75% to 90% of my sub kills over the past six to nine months of game time have been by combat TFs.

I think that has been true from WITP days. Not the comparison between ASW and air/surface combat TF's, but the fact that air/surface combat TF's are deadly on subs.

[Kwik E Mart]

ROTFLMAO!!! Great post for a Friday!

BTW, is the skeptic who sites exact number of DC racks on every known US destroyer to participate in the Pacific, and the dive rate of every known Japanese sub on the list?

Add me as the skeptic who says having seen the movie "1941", there is no way in heck that japanese subs should be getting the results your opponent is getting (excetpt against Ferris wheels) or does that make me a co-disputer?...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Perhaps a lot of the sceptical responses are generated by the tone the Disputer uses as much as the content of his observations.

Another possibility is his tendency to think (or write as though he thinks) that the single data point of his one PBeM game is enough basis for making definitive conclusions about the state of WitP:AE.

100% agree.

Canoerebel refuses to accept any suggestion that the combination of his tactics and strategy, his opponents's tactics and strategies, and game mechanics WAD won't always add up to favorable combat results. Instead, he blames the game for his losses, loudly claiming to have found a "genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed". The complete lack of corroborating evidence from other players doesn't faze him; he dismisses all those who disagree as "complainers" who "don't like him", as he continues to post his daily episodes of "Whine in the Pacific: Angst Edition".

Canoerebel, you have beaten this "dead horse" so much it's bones have been ground into dust. Could you please just stop the constant complaining?

wow...was that on que or what? [X(]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

Perhaps a lot of the sceptical responses are generated by the tone the Disputer uses as much as the content of his observations.

Another possibility is his tendency to think (or write as though he thinks) that the single data point of his one PBeM game is enough basis for making definitive conclusions about the state of WitP:AE.

100% agree.

Canoerebel refuses to accept any suggestion that the combination of his tactics and strategy, his opponents's tactics and strategies, and game mechanics WAD won't always add up to favorable combat results. Instead, he blames the game for his losses, loudly claiming to have found a "genuine anomaly that needs to be addressed". The complete lack of corroborating evidence from other players doesn't faze him; he dismisses all those who disagree as "complainers" who "don't like him", as he continues to post his daily episodes of "Whine in the Pacific: Angst Edition".

Canoerebel, you have beaten this "dead horse" so much it's bones have been ground into dust. Could you please just stop the constant complaining?

Great satire! [:)]


Or were you actually serious? In that case: Way to prove the OP's point!

[mjk428]

I've been "disputing" ASW results for years so this problem goes back to at least the last few versions of WitP.

Playing as the Allies against the AI (Hard & Historical) I lose ridiculous amounts of ASW ships assigned to ASW TFs. To the point that putting DDs in ASW TFs became a big no-no. Instead I put 1 VP tubs in ASW TFs and let the subs pulverize them. The Jap subs waste torps and occasionally take some damage in return.

DDs in any other TF do fine against subs but in ASW TFs they're just targets.


People may see different results playing Head to Head or as the Japanese against the Allied AI - but the above results for me were guaranteed in every game I've started as Allied vs AI since at least 2005.

[John Lansford]

Canonrebel,

In your OP, you say that only 3 DD's were sunk by Japanese subs in WWII, and none were in ASW TF's or conducting escort duties.

I'd like to point out that two of those subs, Hammann and Porter, were both sunk while escorting capital ships.&nbsp; Hammann was of course sunk while assisting Yorktown, and Porter was sunk in that remarkable attack that sank Wasp and damaged North Carolina.&nbsp; Two out of three, IOW, were sunk while on escort duties, although Hammann wasn't looking for subs she was still part of the force screening Yorktown.