Jap ASW forces

[spence]

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Hmm...did you lose your password? [:D]

I NEVER lose MY password..., but when I changed ISP's a while back I lost THEIR password to the members area. So now you are all cursed with two of me (one even fatter and uglier than the other)!!!

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

I've noticed the same thing. There does seem to be a lot of AFBs that gripe and complain anytime the Japanese player manages to do anything intelligent instead of following Japan's historical 'colossal blunder' war planning. I'm sorry, but the majority of the complaints lodged against Japanese players do come from poor planning and tactics of the Allied Player or a brilliant move by the Japanese player.

As far as this thread goes, after having played the game a bit, I am going to say the OP does have a legit concern. ASW and Sub warfare in general does seem a bit skewed to me. Subs get far too many hits early on and fire far to many torpedoes at low priority targets. A tweak is probably in order...but not a knee-jerk nerf, just a small tweak for fine tuning.

Unfortunately, the longer the thread has gone, the less constructive it has become.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Hmm...did you lose your password? [:D]

I NEVER lose MY password..., but when I changed ISP's a while back I lost THEIR password to the members area. So now you are all cursed with two of me (one even fatter and uglier than the other)!!!

How do we know it's really you and not some handsome, intelligent impostor?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

True. Both sides have made the claim. And I have no objection to a Japanese Player who does something "clever and innovative"..., as long as that's what it is. Just remember that only the Japanese player has the option to base his offensive totally on hindsight and game knowledge from the start. By the time the Allies get rolling, the situation will be different in each game.

So if "clever and innovative" turns out to be re-routing his first turn landings (the ones with "bonus moves") to Darwin or Rangoon or New Caledonia or Mersing orsome other location that they could never have reached without giving up surprise and setting every Allied Force in the Pacific moving, I object.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: spence

I agree with Mike Scholl or Mike Scholl 1 or whoever says that the IJ Fanboys seem to want to play Japan so long as they don't have to confront any of the problems that the real Japanese leaders had to confront. ?????????

Conversely, there seem to be quite a few AFBs who when they see a Japanese player achieve better-than-historical outcomes through clever play or simple applied common sense talk as though there's something wrong with the game. "It's not historical" they cry. Apparently Japanese players shouldn't just be limited by the historical levels of equipment and resources available to them, but their decision-making must be passed through some kind of hindsight filter so as to ensure historical outcomes.

True. Both sides have made the claim. And I have no objection to a Japanese Player who does something "clever and innovative"..., as long as that's what it is. Just remember that only the Japanese player has the option to base his offensive totally on hindsight and game knowledge from the start. By the time the Allies get rolling, the situation will be different in each game.

So if "clever and innovative" turns out to be re-routing his first turn landings (the ones with "bonus moves") to Darwin or Rangoon or New Caledonia or Mersing orsome other location that they could never have reached without giving up surprise and setting every Allied Force in the Pacific moving, I object.

That is gamey in the least case and I'd go as far to calling it cheating, and I am a JFB.

I have one game of AE going PBEM. I also have a very good and thoughtful Allied opponent. Good enough that he rerouted PoW and Repulse and wiped out one of my landing task forces early on. I have no complaints about it, he saw me make a mistake and made me pay dearly for it. Instead of coming in here and whining about how he managed to sneak that SAG in under my air superiority, I've changed my tactics to make sure it can't happen again. That is the difference between a lot of what goes on in these forums and me. I didn't like getting spanked like that, but I learned from it and go on. And it was a gutsy and brilliant move on his part...kudos, he'll keep me on my toes from now on.

Too bad so many people who get hit with a similar situation will automatically cry that the game is bugged or that the move was gamey. [:(]

[mdiehl]

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...

Concise and to the point. Well-spoken, Mike.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is gamey in the least case and I'd go as far to calling it cheating, and I am a JFB.

I have one game of AE going PBEM. I also have a very good and thoughtful Allied opponent. Good enough that he rerouted PoW and Repulse and wiped out one of my landing task forces early on. I have no complaints about it, he saw me make a mistake and made me pay dearly for it. Instead of coming in here and whining about how he managed to sneak that SAG in under my air superiority, I've changed my tactics to make sure it can't happen again. That is the difference between a lot of what goes on in these forums and me. I didn't like getting spanked like that, but I learned from it and go on. And it was a gutsy and brilliant move on his part...kudos, he'll keep me on my toes from now on.

Too bad so many people who get hit with a similar situation will automatically cry that the game is bugged or that the move was gamey. [:(]

Here I would agree 100%. The real fun of a game such as this is in trying to make better use of what the antagonists really had, and could really do. Sounds like your opponent got in a "morale booster"..., and as I generally play the Allies, I know how important it is to "get in a lick" every so often while basically just getting hammered. And I salute you for recognizing that not everything will go "dead solid perfect" even with the best of plans. Sounds like the two of you are having a really good game.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is gamey in the least case and I'd go as far to calling it cheating, and I am a JFB.

I have one game of AE going PBEM. I also have a very good and thoughtful Allied opponent. Good enough that he rerouted PoW and Repulse and wiped out one of my landing task forces early on. I have no complaints about it, he saw me make a mistake and made me pay dearly for it. Instead of coming in here and whining about how he managed to sneak that SAG in under my air superiority, I've changed my tactics to make sure it can't happen again. That is the difference between a lot of what goes on in these forums and me. I didn't like getting spanked like that, but I learned from it and go on. And it was a gutsy and brilliant move on his part...kudos, he'll keep me on my toes from now on.

Too bad so many people who get hit with a similar situation will automatically cry that the game is bugged or that the move was gamey. [:(]

Here I would agree 100%. The real fun of a game such as this is in trying to make better use of what the antagonists really had, and could really do. Sounds like your opponent got in a "morale booster"..., and as I generally play the Allies, I know how important it is to "get in a lick" every so often while basically just getting hammered. And I salute you for recognizing that not everything will go "dead solid perfect" even with the best of plans. Sounds like the two of you are having a really good game.

Yep, it is fun. For reference, I thought I'd be 'smart' and take Great Natuna (island due east of Singapore in the Parasols) to set up a float plane base by turn 4. I did take the island, but he picked it up with search and caught a mid sized convoy with only a light cruiser and 2 DDs covering it, and he managed surprise as well. Needless to say, the battle did not go well at all for me. And he simply took advantage of me being overly agressive.

[SuluSea]

quote:

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...

 
 
Exactly!        I've read numerous times "I want to see if I can do better than Japan did historically",
                          that's a laugh considering the many bonuses this game offers the Japanese side.
 
 

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This confuses me. Players SAY they want to play Japan..., then they talk about a "fair fight". There was nothing "fair" about the War in the Pacific. Japan jumped a bunch of still unprepared nations by surprise in a land grab...., then "reaped the whirlwind" when the folks she jumped fully mobilized their massive resources and came looking for "payback".

Players talking about "fair" are really saying that they don't want to play Japan..., they want to play some "Nippon on steroids", comic book version of Japan. You want fair, play checkers! You want the War in the Pacific, accept it for what it was...

First off, when I, and, I suppose, most people talk about "fairness", I mean "no unhistorical one-sided advantage to just one side". The sub situation is perfectly fair. Both sides benefit from turbo subs equally. (In recent news, my current game is in March of 1942, and a second Jap CVL recently ate a sub torp.) Therefore, while turbo subs are ahistorical (I hope the new patch tones them down), they are perfectly fair. Punishing players of one side and one side only for benefitting from hindsight and difference in goals is, on the other hand, nothing but unfair. And this has nothing to do with historical accuracy or lack thereof.

Second, if we're generalizing here, players who demand from others to "accept the War in the Pacific for what it is", don't actually want to accept the War in the Pacific for what it is. They want to play AE on Easy Automatic Mode (playing Allies is Easy Mode already - not because the war is going to end with burning Japan, but because there are very few, if any, blunders, an Allied player cannot recover from, while Japanese players have very little room for mistakes).

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

True. Both sides have made the claim. And I have no objection to a Japanese Player who does something "clever and innovative"..., as long as that's what it is. Just remember that only the Japanese player has the option to base his offensive totally on hindsight and game knowledge from the start. By the time the Allies get rolling, the situation will be different in each game.

So if "clever and innovative" turns out to be re-routing his first turn landings (the ones with "bonus moves") to Darwin or Rangoon or New Caledonia or Mersing orsome other location that they could never have reached without giving up surprise and setting every Allied Force in the Pacific moving, I object.

I agree with your second para; I'm not looking for opportunities to abuse the inevitable abstractions that the game uses like the turn one bonus moves (aside: though I'm not sure Mersing is in the same category as a turn one landing in Darwin; surely Mersing would have been no harder to get to or more detectable than the historical landing sites in Malaya?). But I don't agree with your first. The allies are just as much beneficiaries of hindsight as the Japanese, and from the very first turn.

What's the first allied move in a non-historic turn one? Re-routing force Z to somewhere less suicidal. That one act of hindsight adds two battleships to their naval order of battle. As the allied player planning your defence, the Japanese have no secrets from you. You know the exact locations of all their high-priority targets and have a clear idea of the forces they have to take them with. From week one you can and will be reinforcing and fortifying locations that the historical decision-makers had no idea would ever be under threat.

And heading back towards the subject of this thread, I think we have to recognise that the in-game performance of Japanese ASW will always be better than historical. Because whatever the technical or resource limitations the IJN were having to deal with, ultimately their major failure was simply one of decision-making and organisation. In AE those two areas are under the player's control, not the game system's. And when the history of the Pacific war offers such clear and obvious lessons we can assume that 100% of Japanese players are going to make better decisions than their historical counter-parts. While I understand that might be an uncomfortable fact for those of us who particularly value historical accuracy, I don't think it's fair to try to stamp out the effects of hindsight in one area of the game when it affects all of the strategic (and many of the operational) decisions made by the players. If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, then those who do never will.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

What's the first allied move in a non-historic turn one? Re-routing force Z to somewhere less suicidal. That one act of hindsight adds two battleships to their naval order of battle. As the allied player planning your defence, the Japanese have no secrets from you. You know the exact locations of all their high-priority targets and have a clear idea of the forces they have to take them with. From week one you can and will be reinforcing and fortifying locations that the historical decision-makers had no idea would ever be under threat.

It's probably also the first thing they will try to do in an historical start as well (provided the ships haven't already been sunk..., two days early and BEFORE they historically left port). Why? Because as Admiral Phillips and virtually everyone else but Winston Churchill knew, it was a bad idea. And as the player isn't saddled with Winnie, he probably won't do it.

And what the Japanese goals would be was no surprise to the historic commanders either..., only the speed at which they were able to advance. Read the historic accounts..., EVERYBODY knew where the Japanese were going from day one. What is a-historic is one single mind (the player's) being able to co-ordinate the defensive efforts. But this is an advantage the Japanese will share throughout the game.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

What's the first allied move in a non-historic turn one? Re-routing force Z to somewhere less suicidal. That one act of hindsight adds two battleships to their naval order of battle. As the allied player planning your defence, the Japanese have no secrets from you. You know the exact locations of all their high-priority targets and have a clear idea of the forces they have to take them with. From week one you can and will be reinforcing and fortifying locations that the historical decision-makers had no idea would ever be under threat.

It's probably also the first thing they will try to do in an historical start as well (provided the ships haven't already been sunk..., two days early and BEFORE they historically left port). Why? Because as Admiral Phillips and virtually everyone else but Winston Churchill knew, it was a bad idea. And as the player isn't saddled with Winnie, he probably won't do it.

And what the Japanese goals would be was no surprise to the historic commanders either..., only the speed at which they were able to advance. Read the historic accounts..., EVERYBODY knew where the Japanese were going from day one. What is a-historic is one single mind (the player's) being able to co-ordinate the defensive efforts. But this is an advantage the Japanese will share throughout the game.

Actually I let them continue on their way....with 2 squadrons of Buffalo's flying CAP. You'd be surprised the diference it makes. And that was the original plan to begin with. [:)]

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

And heading back towards the subject of this thread, I think we have to recognise that the in-game performance of Japanese ASW will always be better than historical. Because whatever the technical or resource limitations the IJN were having to deal with, ultimately their major failure was simply one of decision-making and organization. In AE those two areas are under the player's control, not the game system's. And when the history of the Pacific war offers such clear and obvious lessons we can assume that 100% of Japanese players are going to make better decisions than their historical counter-parts. While I understand that might be an uncomfortable fact for those of us who particularly value historical accuracy, I don't think it's fair to try to stamp out the effects of hindsight in one area of the game when it affects all of the strategic (and many of the operational) decisions made by the players. If those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, then those who do never will.

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was...

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was.

Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?

Your presumption is that the Japanese are given some unhistorical in-game ASW advantage, but I've seen very little actual evidence for that in this discussion. And the historical record indicates that it wasn't technical factors that won or lost the ASW war anyway, it was the tactical and organisational. The evidence from World War I was that convoy sharply reduced merchant sinkings even when convoys were unescorted. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Japanese flotilla that was based in the Mediterranean and earned a reputation for effectiveness against Central Powers submarines. The Japanese earned that reputation despite the fact that their ships didn't have a single ASW weapon system on board. They won it with tight, efficiently crewed ships, good lookouts and the very simple tactic of spotting submarines early, then charging down and attempting to ram every submarine that they saw.

You can guarantee that almost every Japanese player will sail his merchants in convoy, not singly. And that he will add ASW-capable escorts whenever possible. We also see that most allied players are much more aggressive with their subs than the was historical - especially early on - and will operate them at a much higher operational tempo. Combine those changes from historical behaviour and you're already certain to see many more allied subs sunk; that would probably be true even if the World War II IJN were still relying on ramming as their only ASW weapon. Massive variation from historical behaviour inevitably leads to massive variation in outcomes. There's no need to look for some built-in Japanese ASW advantage to explain that variation.

I'm not arguing that the ASW system in AE is perfect. I'm not an expert on the game, and a lot of the mechanics are hidden from us. But if the ASW game was so horribly biased towards the Japanese, it would be useful if we could be shown a bit more evidence of it. In the meantime, I think it's mostly a simple case of hindsight changing behaviour and behaviour changing results.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

No argument that any intelligent Japanese player will pay more attention to ASW and escorting than his historical counter-parts did. At least he should. I've never complained about this. But Japanese ASW forces were poorly trained and poorly equipped on the day the war began (the day the player assumes command), and this should NOT change. Many didn't even have hydrophones, most had nothing to compare with ASDIC. I object only to making them what they weren't..., a well trained, well-equipped, capable force. Making better use of them is one thing..., making them better is something else.

It's like making the Chinese Air Force an effective force (say exp. 80). A player will undoubtedly make better use of it than the Chinese..., but that doesn't justify the game making it better than it was.

Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?

Your presumption is that the Japanese are given some unhistorical in-game ASW advantage, but I've seen very little actual evidence for that in this discussion. And the historical record indicates that it wasn't technical factors that won or lost the ASW war anyway, it was the tactical and organisational. The evidence from World War I was that convoy sharply reduced merchant sinkings even when convoys were unescorted. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Japanese flotilla that was based in the Mediterranean and earned a reputation for effectiveness against Central Powers submarines. The Japanese earned that reputation despite the fact that their ships didn't have a single ASW weapon system on board. They won it with tight, efficiently crewed ships, good lookouts and the very simple tactic of spotting submarines early, then charging down and attempting to ram every submarine that they saw.

You can guarantee that almost every Japanese player will sail his merchants in convoy, not singly. And that he will add ASW-capable escorts whenever possible. We also see that most allied players are much more aggressive with their subs than the was historical - especially early on - and will operate them at a much higher operational tempo. Combine those changes from historical behaviour and you're already certain to see many more allied subs sunk; that would probably be true even if the World War II IJN were still relying on ramming as their only ASW weapon. Massive variation from historical behaviour inevitably leads to massive variation in outcomes. There's no need to look for some built-in Japanese ASW advantage to explain that variation.

I'm not arguing that the ASW system in AE is perfect. I'm not an expert on the game, and a lot of the mechanics are hidden from us. But if the ASW game was so horribly biased towards the Japanese, it would be useful if we could be shown a bit more evidence of it. In the meantime, I think it's mostly a simple case of hindsight changing behaviour and behaviour changing results.

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

In 1941 and 1942, the US subs made approximately 300 war patrols. In those 300 patrols, they sank about 180 Japanese ships. Japanese escorts sank 1 US sub confirmed, and probably 2 others. So, that's about 1 US submarine lost for every 60-90 Japanese ships sunk, historically. I think the AAR's are showing more along the lines of 1 US sub sunk (by Japanese ASW vessels) for less than 10 Japanese ships sunk (probably around 5 or so.)

Regardless of how each player uses their assets, the Japanese in WITP AE might have a factor of 10 better ASW than historic.

In that same time, US ASW ships sank around 17 Japanese subs (US subs sank 6 Japanese subs as well.) I don't have the US ship losses available, though.

I think some of the AAR's are showing a trend that might be about double that number. But, double is a lot more in the ball park than 10 times. Especially when players use their assets in a non historic manner.

Numbers are from "Silent Victory" by Blair.

Thanks Bradley..., I couldn't have put it better.

[bradfordkay]

"Well hang on a sec. I'm not sure I'm seeing the same Japanese Navy as you. The order of battle and device database in AE are entirely transparent, yet in this 11 page thread on Japanese ASW I don't recall a single post pointing out where the Japanese are given ships or devices that they shouldn't have had, or critiquing the way they are rated. And as previously discussed, we know that all Japanese experience levels are heavily discounted when resolving ASW combat. So where exactly is this "well trained, well-equipped, capable force" you're talking about?"

To my knowledge, SONAR is not modeled in the game and so the allies' clear advantage in the ASW war due to better equipment and training in this aspect of the war is completely left out of the game - except for that little discount of Japanese experience levels when resolving ASW combat.