About ASW

[Jzanes]

I've reached mid-October 1944 in my PBEM vs. Rader.  I'm playing the allies and in my experience allied subs have been useless as an offensive weapon since early 1943.  I check and move sighted subs every turn and keep my subs in deep water hexes but it doesn't really matter.  Any sub within 6 hexes of a japanese airbase or any sub in a busy japanese shipping lane is quickly and efficiently sunk or heavily damaged (at best).  IMHO the only reasonable strategy for the use of subs after the happy days of 1942 is to keep them in quiet waters as a defensive screen or to deploy them within 2 hexes of an allied fighter airbase.
 
I'm certain that my japanese opponent (Rader) would say it's even worse for the japanese subs.  My opponent seems to keep them in port and only rarely sends some out to contest an invasion or drop some mines.

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven´t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I´m a good car driver, I´m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all.

I am sure that LoBaron will be disappointed to see that it is set in stone that he will NEVER be able to do better against late war Japanese ASW than you have. LB- here is some advice, in 1944 put your subs in port and leave them there because the result of using them is predetermined! lol

Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate.

Why are you debating? From what I've seen on this forum it is simply because it is what you like to do. You stir the pot with anecdotal evidence and then get offended when someone disagrees. CT- its okay to have different opinions. Thsi game has room for different skill levels and strategies.

Or, like I´ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren´t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn´t agree here. Nik´s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

Your performance is no guarantee of the performance of others in the same game. Please accept that others will do better or worse than you. Your results are NOT the only possible results.

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I´m a rookie. You won´t get your Oscars to rock...

I have to agree there, you won't get Oscars to rock after the first few months of the war, but I would not equate them to the Gato and Balao class subs. Nor would I equate a Super E to a P47- they aren't as durable

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: offenseman

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn´t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that´s what we´ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven´t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I´m a good car driver, I´m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I´ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren´t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn´t agree here. Nik´s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I´m a rookie. You won´t get your Oscars to rock...

Dear CT, I will try to explain you something about me and I hope oud take the time to read and understand what I mean:

Most people I know would describe myself as someone who voices opinions but to only sticks to
them in case nobody can show me plausable alternatives to my point of view.

In case this does happen I question whether I could be wrong and depending on the
outcome of that I either change my opinion/point of view, get interested in finding it out whos right
- or regard it as an old story and either start a debate with the one who thinks different or
start ignoring the others opinion if I repeatedly notice that its not worth it.

To be concrete:

Concerning the debate on the E I am undecided, I also believe that it is possible to bevery dangerous with subs - in
case you try the right things - well after 43, as both sides. I tend to belive that the E can change the equation a bit but
not so much that it tilts the whole picture.

Thats why for me the discussion was over when I wrote:

"Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ´44." (post #28)


That you are coming back to the air war is not neccesary anymore because this belongs to another example from
above, which is ignoring you.

I just might tell you that the simple reason for this is that think I am right. Right enough that it is very close to "know".
And the most convincing proof for me is that I enjoy the air war. Tremendousely. It gives so much room for interpretation
that explaining what happens and reacting to it in a correct way can take several tries and a lot of shifting initiative
over short periods of time.

If you enjoy playing the air war you are at least having strange way of showing it.

[LoBaron]

And Mike. Rats, there goes my hope for getting underestimated. Now its overestion. Every players biggest enemy. You just delayed all Allied offensive operations for another
6 months. [;)]

[Tijanski]

I thought the naval designers say three or four times what is not good about E and japanese DC and how to fix it. Why is this going on again?

I fixed mine the first time they said do this and it works just fine.

[spence]

Or perhaps you think so because your skills are not on par with either historical USN commanders or numerous players who did just that, as evidenced by about half of existing AARs.

I haven't resorted to such BS.

The results of an encounter between any two opposing ships who happen to show up at the same place at the same time is basically a function of some coded numbers and a little luck. Player skill or lack thereof nothing to do with the result beyond putting the ships in the place.

As to Japanese ASW the following extract from the TROMs at Combined Fleet should say enough about how the vaunted E class fared against RL US subs.
For the time being we'll ignore the initial massacre of the convoy and just focus on the encounter between one E class and two other 1st line escorts and two US subs.

17 August 1944: Operation "SHO-1-GO" (Victory) - The Defense of the Philippines:
HIBURI and old destroyer ASAKAZE and kaibokans MATSUWA, ETOROFU and SADO arrive from Takao on the orders of 1st Surface Escort Division to strengthen convoy HI-71's escort forces. HI-71 is comprised of oilers AZUSA, TEIYO, EIYO, ZUIHO, AMATSU and KYOKUTO MARUs, fleet oiler HAYASUI, transports TEIA, AWA, NOTO, HOKKAI, TAMATSU, NOSHIRO and MAYASAN MARUs and cargo ships KASHII, NISSHO and MARUs. The convoy's screen is provided by Rear Admiral (Vice Admiral, posthumously) Kajioka Sadamichi (former CO of KISO) of 6th Escort Convoy with destroyers FUJINAMI and YUNAGI, kaibokans HIRATO, KURAHASHI, MIKURA, SHONAN and CD-11 and escort carrier TAIYO. At 0800, in typhoon weather, HI-71 sorties from Mako for Manila.

18 August 1944:
At 0524, LtCdr (Rear Admiral-Ret) Louis D. McGregor's USS REDFISH (SS-395) torpedoes and damages EIYO MARU. ASAKAZE and YUNAGI are detached to escort her back to Takao. Off Cape Bolinao, Luzon. At 2210, LtCdr (later Captain) Henry G. Munson's USS RASHER (SS-269) torpedoes and sinks oiler TEIYO MARU in a surface radar attack. At 2222, Munson torpedoes and sinks carrier TAIYO at the rear of the convoy. At 2310, RASHER, still on the surface, hits transport TEIA MARU with three torpedoes using radar bearings. The ex-French liner is set afire and sinks.

19 August 1944:
The convoy splits into two groups. Just past midnight, RASHER, still running on the surface, closes on an eastbound group of three large ships and one escort. At 0033, LtCdr Munson puts two radar-directed torpedoes into the port sides of AWA and NOSHIRO MARUs. Both ships beach themselves near Port Currimao. LtCdr Charles M. Henderson's USS BLUEFISH (SS-222) and LtCdr (later Captain) Gordon W. Underwood's SPADEFISH (SS-411) join in the attack on HI-71. At 0320, BLUEFISH hits and sinks HAYASUI. SPADEFISH hits TAMATSU MARU with two torpedoes and the big landing craft depot ship rolls over and takes down 4,755 men. HI-71 makes for San Fernando.

21 August 1944:
Rear Admiral Kajioka orders SADO, HIBURI and MATSUWA to proceed to Manila.

22 August 1944:
Hidai Bay, 25 nms W of Manila Bay. At 0456, Cdr (MOH, posthumously) Samuel D. Dealy’s USS HARDER (SS-257) torpedoes both MATSUWA and HIBURI in their port sides and stops them dead in the water. SADO signals for assistance.

At 0524, SADO is torpedoed by LtCdr (Rear Admiral-Ret) Chester W. Nimitz Jr’s USS HADDO (SS-255). At 0649, MATSUWA is sunk by HARDER.

At 0720, HADDO fires three torpedoes at the two remaining derelicts. One torpedo misses, but the others hit SADO squarely and sink her at 14-15N 120-25E. Cdr Taniguchi and 72 crewmen are KIA. Cdr Taniguchi is posthumously promoted Captain.

At 0755, HIBURI also sinks bow first at 14-15N, 120-25E.

How many subs sunk? was that ZERO.

How many escorts? 3 was that really three or maybe it was just two and a bad player.

Get a life.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Tijanski

I thought the naval designers say three or four times what is not good about E and japanese DC and how to fix it. Why is this going on again?

I fixed mine the first time they said do this and it works just fine.

there will always be people arguing they would be good as they are in stock, that´s why the discussion will go on and will start over again. Same with Tiger vs Sherman, the dive, coordination, B-17 unstoppable, did land based radar really not work for over a year?, I bet search archs worked just fine!, fixed historical replacements vs unlimited production, etc, etc, etc. [:D]

I don´t mind the discussion, most times I don´t care and if then I shout out loud anyway as the ignorance might be big on the other side and you cheer up like a small child if the other side suddenly comes up with something you have been telling for nearly two years, that´s why it´s so fun to find out search archs or land based radar isn´t working and it takes many others no less than a year to notice that too while they tell you you know nothing about the game. It´s fun and as long as someone is changing something, everything is fine. In case of this thread, many mods have done something about it, mods of official ppl and mods of players only. Wonder why... [;)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: offenseman

ORIGINAL: castor troy

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven´t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I´m a good car driver, I´m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all.

I am sure that LoBaron will be disappointed to see that it is set in stone that he will NEVER be able to do better against late war Japanese ASW than you have. LB- here is some advice, in 1944 put your subs in port and leave them there because the result of using them is predetermined! lol

Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate.

Why are you debating? From what I've seen on this forum it is simply because it is what you like to do. You stir the pot with anecdotal evidence and then get offended when someone disagrees. CT- its okay to have different opinions. Thsi game has room for different skill levels and strategies.

Or, like I´ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren´t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn´t agree here. Nik´s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

Your performance is no guarantee of the performance of others in the same game. Please accept that others will do better or worse than you. Your results are NOT the only possible results.

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I´m a rookie. You won´t get your Oscars to rock...

I have to agree there, you won't get Oscars to rock after the first few months of the war, but I would not equate them to the Gato and Balao class subs. Nor would I equate a Super E to a P47- they aren't as durable

applaus, you won´t believe me, I agree with most of this, doesn´t change anything about I´ve posted in this thread though.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: offenseman




I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven´t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I´m a good car driver, I´m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I´ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren´t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn´t agree here. Nik´s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I´m a rookie. You won´t get your Oscars to rock...

Dear CT, I will try to explain you something about me and I hope oud take the time to read and understand what I mean:

Most people I know would describe myself as someone who voices opinions but to only sticks to
them in case nobody can show me plausable alternatives to my point of view.

In case this does happen I question whether I could be wrong and depending on the
outcome of that I either change my opinion/point of view, get interested in finding it out whos right
- or regard it as an old story and either start a debate with the one who thinks different or
start ignoring the others opinion if I repeatedly notice that its not worth it.

To be concrete:

Concerning the debate on the E I am undecided, I also believe that it is possible to bevery dangerous with subs - in
case you try the right things - well after 43, as both sides. I tend to belive that the E can change the equation a bit but
not so much that it tilts the whole picture.

Thats why for me the discussion was over when I wrote:

"Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ´44." (post #28)


That you are coming back to the air war is not neccesary anymore because this belongs to another example from
above, which is ignoring you.

I just might tell you that the simple reason for this is that think I am right. Right enough that it is very close to "know".
And the most convincing proof for me is that I enjoy the air war. Tremendousely. It gives so much room for interpretation
that explaining what happens and reacting to it in a correct way can take several tries and a lot of shifting initiative
over short periods of time.

If you enjoy playing the air war you are at least having strange way of showing it.

you don´t have to explain me anything about you, neither do I have to explain anything about me to you as we "know" each other for one and a halve years now. And to repeat myselve, the worst thing you can do is to judge about something you haven´t even reached so far. Don´t give tips, advices or anything else about something you haven´t experienced as you just lack that experience. Go onto the slope to teach someone skiing when it´s the first time you are on skies yourselve and tell me how well that works.

Who said I´m enjoying the air war? I´m enjoying parts of it. Parts. And when you reach later years and not mid 42 with 50 bombers in a strike you will enjoy it still 100% as that´s how you are and as you know, I´m different. No problem. Yes, this thread is not about the air routines, we agree. You may well read up all the comments about pre flak Cap and what it turned out (surprise!), or ceiling sweeps (= exploit, surprise!), or anything else we enjoyed discussing over the last 18 months. And many times: surprise I love reading the old anecdotes. [:)]

I really salute the previous devs which are now working on their mods to enhance things. And the reason they do tells me that there is a need to do so in their oppinion. Like WITP, AE will reach it´s high peak with all the mods at some point two or three years after release, many things will be patched, many things will be dealt with mods and that´s nothing but great.

[LoBaron]

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys. [:)]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys. [:)]

Agreed, very good summary about high-altitude sweep and how one has to change his tactics to counter it. If player is too stubborn to do that, well...it's not the game that is broken. [:D]

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: spence
I haven't resorted to such BS.

Looks like I hit home. That AE is currently disbalanced in favor of Allies is an observable fact. Half of AARs - those where Japan wins pretty hard in 1942 - end on historical schedule or slightly earlier. Ever where the AAR of our champion AFB complainer, castor troy? He, IIRC, took Eastern DEI, Burma, and invading Philippines in summer of 1944. Other half, those where Japan falls short of unquestionable victory in 1942, end with Japan catastrophically defeated far ahead of schedule. The only exception I can think of at the moment is "Taming the Bear" game, where the Allied player was incomprehensibly passive until second half of 1944. I hope my "Ocean of Blood" game will be another exception, but putting aside the fact that it is in one of Enhanced Japan scenarios, I benefitted from the probably most fortuitious convergence of circumstances and opponents' mistakes possible there, and I don't think I'll be able to destroy Allied fleet so completely ever again.
So if you fail to defeat Japan on time in such metagame - and instead fixate of the fact that the metagame gives Japan a break in a particular area - the problem lies solely with your skills.

ORIGINAL: spence
The results of an encounter between any two opposing ships who happen to show up at the same place at the same time is basically a function of some coded numbers and a little luck. Player skill or lack thereof nothing to do with the result beyond putting the ships in the place.

If you're responding to me, try responding to me, not to your own thoughts that have nothing to do with my position on this particular subject clearly stated upthread. Also I love how you are trying to fall back to "But I was talking only about subs vs escorts!", even though everyone with working eyes can see that I was responding to:

ORIGINAL: spence
What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Hey, buddy, I wasn't the person who used "rout." Maybe we have a differnet definition of the word. I would agree, for example, that the performance of the Red Army in the first months of Barbarossa was a rout. Historic, epic even.

And there you would be wrong. Because the central Pacific campaign starting from the invasion of Gilberts was far more of an one-sided beatdown, if for no other reason.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Leyte Gulf woud have been an American disaster if the Japanese main force had kept coming and attacked the landing beaches. The IJN would have ultimately lost, yes, but they would have set back the invasion of the PI 6-9 months or more, and scored a propaganda victory on a tiring US public of immense value.

It was almost a miracle that the Japanese main body was allowed to get past San Bernardino strait at all. If they got to the invasion beaches... they most likely wouldn't have been able to inflict catastrophic damage you take as a given, before getting cornered by American taskforces converging on them, due to exhaustion of ammo stores, accumulating damage from continuing air attacks, and, oh, continuing air attacks. What makes you think, that Japanese gunfire suddenly would have become much more efficient than it was in the battle against escort carriers, which they still needed to exterminated before striking at the landing beaches, had they pressed on? The invasion wouldn't have been set back by anywhere near 6 months in any case, considering that enough troops and materials were unloaded already to make unseating Americans from Leyte impossible, and that Allies had more than enough shipping to cover losses. Only loss of specialized amphibious assault ships might have been a problem, like, at all.

So, while it was certainly possible for Japanese to inflict greater damage and to make the sacrifice of the Combined Fleet less empty, I see no grounds for assuming that it was possible for them to inflict enough damage to even cause a major delay in the American campaign. Consider, that the entire Guadalcanal campaign was resolved faster that your supposed 6-month delay, even though the balance of forces then and there was infinitely more favorable to Japanese, and IJN managed to chase off American transports before they finished unloading.

As about "propaganda victory"... did I just found the first poster on this forum who thinks that a conditional peace was possible to achieve for Japan, in 1944 of all times?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Tell that to the men who died on Iwo Jima. FWIW, I don't agree with your definition. If that is used, Japan was routed on December 8, 1941.

No, you merely fail or refuse to undertand it. "Inability to take meaningful defensive actions" means that you are incapable of contesting the enemy's advance, unable to take initiative, is reduced to passively sitting and waiting for your doom, because every attempt to counterpunch the enemy ends with your forces getting destroyed for no significant results. Japan de-facto fell into this state around November of 1943, and by the end of February of 1944 it was patently clear, that USN owns the ocean and can rampage through their defenses almost at will. Appeal to the dead veterans is a nice debating move (although no, it isn't), but the fact remains that the outcome of Iwo Jima battle was predetermined the instant US planners decided that they want this island, and Japanese, even doing their best, had no ability to change this fact. And this is true for all the other battles before, starting from the point I've mentioned above.

And so, returning to Allied subs, while their activities past this point were, no doubt, a very cost-efficient way of administering coup de grace to the enemy, this does not change the fact that the enemy was already mortally wounded, with no hope of recovery, by the time the sub campaign reached its peak. But a lot of AFBs (regardless of the separate and real, although now hopefully fixed, super-E issue) seem to expect that subs should win the war by themselves, even when they don't really try or very much fail to ensure that their opponent wouldn't be able to devote a humongous portion of his resources to combatting subs, instead of the small portion Japanese were able to devote IRL, due to pressure on all fronts[8|].

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys. [:)]

just to point out to everyone (new and old players), TheElf, the air team dev leader himselve said ceiling sweeps (aka stratosweeps) would be an exploit. This was said, after one year rambling, grunting and ranting how the air routines work and what the ceiling sweeps do (with the effect of non working land based radar added in - which was also denied for a year until suddenly patched to work from then on). Knowing that LoBaron´s ability to remember things is a little behind his great knowledge of everything else, let me quote just one statement of TheElf about ceiling sweeps being an exploit (took me 1 min to dig up). So for all the new and old players, you either go with LoBaron´s statement on it or with TheElf´s statement about it. Both usually agree 100% which more than amazes me they wouldn´t be agreeing now.

ORIGINAL: mbatch729

Ok, been away from the forums for a while, but understand from my opponent that there is debate going on about high altitude sweeps. Below is a typical result from our game. And even though the results say 12 lost, it was actually 20. His high altitude sweeps are KILLING my fighters. The below group average experience was 77. I've had similar results against groups that have 85-90 experience. Plenty of air support/supplies/etc at the bases. I'm to the point of grounding all my fighters. No point in putting up CAP...

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 39,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 21
Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 16
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 12 destroyed
Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Hurricane IIb Trop sweeping at 36000 feet *
CAP engaged:
Kanoya Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (21 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
21 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32810
Raid is overhead

TheElf: yup, your opponent is gamin the system.

can be seen here: fb.asp?m=2564311

being the numero uno ranter about strato sweeps for ages, I exactly stopped when I´ve first read it would be an exploit. It has been kind of funny that I have been first told for ages that everything works very well, mostly by Mr. LoBaron, to then see Ian posting it would be an exploit. Hoping to see something changed, at least I had the official statement that it´s not that great to have these ceiling sweeps.

Of course evil castor found something else to complain about after strato sweeps were called an exploit.

ps: If you wish to, I could also dig up some of your comments about pre Cap flak BEFORE the patch.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just in case new players are discouraged by random rambling of the unimaginative:

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight and air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Have fun guys. [:)]

Agreed, very good summary about high-altitude sweep and how one has to change his tactics to counter it. If player is too stubborn to do that, well...it's not the game that is broken. [:D]

while in general agreeing with you comment I´m also referring here to the air team lead. The hr about going with the second best maneuver rating was said to be the best hr on this matter. Not my idea, but other players and confirmed by the air team lead.

If you don´t end up in a spiral to go higher and higher, it always was and always will work best if you stay at "reasonable" alts and I never denied that. If one ends up in the spiral, wel...

[Bullwinkle58]

I categorically disagree with your points, but I'm sure I won't change your mind by arguing with you. Believe what you like.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
...

...

Gentlemen,

You both have points. Leyte Gulf and Samar in particular are bad examples. For one thing, my understanding is that the US transports were unloaded of troops and there were small mountains of supplies already off loaded also. If Kurita had continued he would have destroyed more ships and killed more men, and then almost certainly his force would have been destroyed in great detail.

Use of the word 'rout' is inaccurate. Seeing in the light of history that something seems to have been inevitable does not make the situation a rout. A rout is something quite different, where the enemy both ceases attempting to resist and retreats in panic and disorder. Imperial Japanese defenses from the Gilberts onward were not that at all.

However, "beat down" could apply although perhaps without universal agreement. The Allies, mainly in the US dominated theaters, had significant advantages and used them to systematically advance. As one of you mentioned, when Allied planners decided to get it they got it.

Defensive actions which are "meaningful" in one light might be viewed as meaningless in another. Certainly, war weariness on the part of the American people was a valid consideration as it was a serious concern of American leadership. So, even though the defense of Iwo Jima was understood to be doomed, the achievements of that effort in influencing the war as it progressed and how it would ultimately terminate were very much uncertain at the time.

[Bullwinkle58]

My concern was more with his untrue assertions about the USN submarine effort. It's constant in this forum, and usually by European posters. If it doesn't involve U-boats it was a cakewalk.

When I post actual figures which he apparently doesn't even read, why waste more time?

[CyrusSpitama]

While I appreciate the responses to my post, I did not ask for this to become a discussion of the "facts" of history or opinion !

My post was a simple question regarding whether I was doing my best to perform ASW because I am/was already seeing a painful loss to my shipping fleet. I have since started a brand-new, fresh game since I believe Oct'42 is far enough in to my first game to see the ramifications of many of my early decisions. With that said, let's try to get this post back on topic, agreed?



The biggest mistake I made? Too many factory changes/repairs/builds. I especially felt the loss of those early supplies being sucked up by repairs.

Second biggest? Too slow in the DEI allowing them to concentrate their defenses.

Up there in the top 5 mistakes... Allowing Allied subs to sink almost one merchant ship or more per day in the first three months of the war !!! I am not saying they sank exactly one AK or TK a day. I am saying they easily met this average due to having a few days of nothing, followed by key sinkings of loaded down APs, TKs, or AKs. Often, they sank multiple ships in a single turn cycle. While I was able to still handle my shipping needs in my game I just started over, I knew how badly I was punished by these earlier losses.

So, any further input on game related issues and the ASW issue would be much appreciated

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And Mike. Rats, there goes my hope for getting underestimated. Now its overestion. Every players biggest enemy. You just delayed all Allied offensive operations for another
6 months. [;)]

I wish that were true but I do not believe you! [:-] [;)]