Need advice/links for noob playing allies.. please

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

There are some AARs which have just started and many older ones by vets above. Start a couple, find one which suits you and compare notes. Plenty of "tactical" advice is always here. Strategic insight is also well cited by several players. I don't want to recommend one myself because I read half a dozen for different reasons. There are the "classic" ones which players with intimate knowledge of the system itself max out the game on one hand, and others, "romantic" (that's you guys LADM Sprior and Capt'n Mandrake) which provide an alternate side of the war.[:D]

So, if it's ok to ask, which are the elite AAR (players) to look at? I'd prefer to leverage some of their vast knowledge to prevent my arse getting kicked around for 3-4 years [X(]

Don't know about elite, but I've got an AAR going: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2966329&go=last

We're in mid-July '43.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

So what do people think I should do with all the B18 Bolo MB? Train them for?

ASW is big. Naval search is big; for the US the army really needs to take over as much search responsiblity as it can, early on. Later, it needs to assume the greater part of the ASW workload.

Eventually, though, ground attack will become a greater and greater concern, and you should keep that in mind. Develop some kind of ground attack crew reserve from early on. They will primarily be used in airfield and port attacks late in '42 and through much of '43.

Cross training might seem like a good strategy, but it only takes a week to clean out a squadron and replace the crews with people with a different skill set. The important thing is to train crews to be in the 70+ proficiency range in something. You have virtually unlimited resources as far as the replacement pool goes (if you're the US).

[jzardos]

Thanks for all the advice and answers to my questions. I'm so overwhelmed with all the help, a good thing!

So does anybody see the value in going 'general' training for air units? Seems like most people's advice is to specialize the air groups?

I noticed there's a good deal of transport ships in India area and Aussieland. What should I be doing with these? Besides keep most safe and maybe others (DEI stuff) to make supply runs to PI and SI?

Oh BTW what does 'OZ' stand for? Seen it referenced in a few posted, but don't know the reference city/area?

Thanks again all!

[Quixote]

1. Oz is the abbreviation for Australia.

2. I've yet to see anyone advocate for General Training over picking the skill(s) you want to train yourself. (Someone will now surprise me by doing just that, but most folks seem to prefer to hand-pick their skills.)

3. Send those transports with supplies and reinforcements to areas you think will be threatened in a month or so - not to areas that are threatened right now. If you do the latter, they will get there too late, and probably get sunk.

[geofflambert]

Why would anyone want a fighter pilot to be trained in transport aircraft? I think if you put a pilot in general training for 2 years he still wouldn't be good at anything. Carrier bomber pilots are the worst. They really need to be proficient in 2 or 3 different skills (if you leave out ground attack) and it takes a good while to get them there. As an Allied player, pilot training is the most time consuming part of the play.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Quixote
I've yet to see anyone advocate for General Training over picking the skill(s) you want to train yourself. (Someone will now surprise me by doing just that, but most folks seem to prefer to hand-pick their skills.)

I only use "general training" in a very contrived circumstance. I've more pilot trainees for my transport aircraft groups (and training groups) than I know what to do with. When I'm full of those trainees, I'll dump 'em into General Reserve. Thereafter, I'll train them up on "transport" to meet my needs and then start them on General training. Why? So they can continue to build their experience per se. After their experience gets into the mid-50s or low 60s, they can be: 1. dumped into General Reserve and 2. Recruited into a fighter training group for A2A combat. This serves to maintain a high experience level on fighter pilots-a valued subset of training.

[Sardaukar]

I have no testing done with it, but I have inkling that General Training might raise Exp bit faster than specific training. Again, just feeling, no proof.

[jzardos]

So what are the most important attributes for a sub capt? The main ship/sub page displays 'Leadership' and 'Inspiration'. Are those the most important? Should I be spending PP to put good sub commanders in my boats? Just my good boats [8D]

[Canoerebel]

All subs are good subs for the Allies, dud rate or not. What other asset do you have that can operate offensively deep in enemy territory, reporting the occasional capital ship ("Wow, SHokoku is there?!") and rare put a fish into something that makes ugly gurgling sounds as it's breaking up. Replacing substandard sub commanders is indeed a high PP priority for many players.

The Allies are chronically short of PP as far into the game as I've every played, making prioritizing a critical job.

The first order of business is to accumulate the big stockpiles that allow you to buy critical units when needed (or as soon as possible).

Even while your banking PPs, though, there are a zillion "cheap" expenditures that you'd like to make. You can't, or you'll always be broke, but some of the priorities of some players (well, moi) might look like this:

1. Replace Chinese leaders for any units about to be involved in major combat in a critical hex.
2. Attend to critical TF commanders (carriers and important combat TFs believed to be venturing into harm's way)
3. Sub commanders.
4. Key support personel in vital hexes (for instance, major unit commanders in Singapore plus - for me - the AA commanders).
5. Some of the CD units/etc. that need to go forward to garrison your "bulwarks and breakwaters."
6. Engineers needed to build bases.
7. Restricted aircraft needed at the front.

How we Allied players ever have enough, I dunno. But I darn sure make sure not to fritter away points by failing to withdraw shps or squadrons.

[geofflambert]

CR's comments are wise and valuable, but OT. Changing sub commanders costs nearly nothing and is more important than a lot of other things, like the time you spend on your pilots. Maximum aggression! Accept nothing less than a >60 aggressiveness. That's all.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

CR's comments are wise and valuable, but OT. Changing sub commanders costs nearly nothing and is more important than a lot of other things, like the time you spend on your pilots. Maximum aggression! Accept nothing less than a >60 aggressiveness. That's all.

Aggression is good, but may waste torpedoes... The thread with a year's worth of sub data (was it from topeverest?) is informative. If there's any sort of positive correlation between Nav skill and torpedoes used, I think favoring Nav over Aggr is good.

[tiemanjw]

Studying sub results from 1941-1942, the answer is leadership followed by aggression. The corolation for success was highest with leadership, high with aggression, and even higher when you added the 2 togeather. Try to have the sum above 115. Nav skill had no corolation (except that good leadership, and good nav skill ted to come togeather), however I just read somewhere that it influences not getting spotted and ability to get away when spotted, so I guess don't ignore it.

As for corolations with torp usage, there is a decent one for nav skill (higher skill is fewer torps), but a better one with aggression. So if you are concerned with torp expenditure, higher aggression is your friend. That said, the fleet boats don't miss often, and with their high dud rate I want them to shoot more torpedos, but alas, I can't order them to do that.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Aggression is good, but may waste torpedoes...

US torps are wasted before they're even loaded on the boat. Ramming speed! [:'(]

[steamboateng]

I would think that NAV skill increases with the commanders experience. At least I hope so. I would als think Commanders with high NAV skill are less prone to ASW attack, but I can't prove it.

[Cpt Sherwood]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Aggression is good, but may waste torpedoes...

US torps are wasted before they're even loaded on the boat. Ramming speed! [:'(]

LCDR Freeman wants to differ with you. He is not a really good commander, just good enough.

January 21, 1942
Sub attack near Sangi at 78,96

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
DD Amatsukaze

Allied Ships
SS Skipjack

SS Skipjack launches 4 torpedoes at CVL Ryujo
Skipjack diving deep ....
DD Amatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Amatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Amatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Amatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Amatsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

Just wondering if anybody could help me with a few short and long term action items to do as allies after the Dec 7th, 1941 nightmare turn.

Some of my questions are around
- best way to defend Singapore
- bets way to defend Philippines
- what to do with CV fleets in action and CV in west coast.
- do I get more supply in west coast? Surprise to low supply levels there to start scenario.
- what to do with ships in PH (damaged and non-damaged), Japan makes a 2nd strike?

Any and all advice and or links to what I'm guessing has been asked before is much appreciated.

Thanks!

Well, first of all, I suggest you modify the thread title to "Need advice---No AI please"

If the AI looks in here and reads all this stuff you are royally screwed. As a matter of fact.....how do we know YOU aren't the AI just posting here to get pointers??? Hmmmmmm???


Quick!

Name the three Alou brothers?

What did Mercury Morris get arrested for?

[Canoerebel]

1. Moses 2. Felipe 3. Platyhelminthes

Possession of cocaine.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Studying sub results from 1941-1942, the answer is leadership followed by aggression. The corolation for success was highest with leadership, high with aggression, and even higher when you added the 2 togeather. Try to have the sum above 115. Nav skill had no corolation (except that good leadership, and good nav skill ted to come togeather), however I just read somewhere that it influences not getting spotted and ability to get away when spotted, so I guess don't ignore it.

As for corolations with torp usage, there is a decent one for nav skill (higher skill is fewer torps), but a better one with aggression. So if you are concerned with torp expenditure, higher aggression is your friend. That said, the fleet boats don't miss often, and with their high dud rate I want them to shoot more torpedos, but alas, I can't order them to do that.

Stat analysis is fine as far as it goes, but for subs I tend to discount a lot of it as deployment habits can drive your stats all over the place. The most aggressive CO in the game can't hit anything if the player zones him to a dead area. Stats can be directional, but I wouldn't become too enamored.

Also, I don't think (correct me if wrong) your analyses include use of the deck gun. In the early war, after the first upgrade cycle, this can become a fairly significant tool, especially on unescorted TFs when playing the AI. In my experience playing the AI aggressive USN COs tend to use the deck gun more often than low-aggression. This results in more sinkings, but also more submarine damage and potentially losses. Sometimes the most aggressive CO is not the best one for the job. Very aggressive COs also sometimes drive into minefields while in pursuit.

Just a few things to consider.

[tiemanjw]

Stat analysis is fine as far as it goes, but for subs I tend to discount a lot of it as deployment habits can drive your stats all over the place. The most aggressive CO in the game can't hit anything if the player zones him to a dead area. Stats can be directional, but I wouldn't become too enamored.

Also, I don't think (correct me if wrong) your analyses include use of the deck gun. In the early war, after the first upgrade cycle, this can become a fairly significant tool, especially on unescorted TFs when playing the AI. In my experience playing the AI aggressive USN COs tend to use the deck gun more often than low-aggression. This results in more sinkings, but also more submarine damage and potentially losses. Sometimes the most aggressive CO is not the best one for the job. Very aggressive COs also sometimes drive into minefields while in pursuit.

Just a few things to consider.

I don't disagree with any of your points. Stats analyses is a tool that may be able to help identify trends. Unspoken is that employment is far more important. My use of the S boats and Dutch boats was dreadful - and thus they don't have as many kills. That said, with a lot of data, some trends can emerge to help for future employment.

You are also mostly correct in that surface attacks are not properly scored in my analyses. Especially recently in my game surface gun attacks have been quite effective. In my scoring, a gun only attack would show up as "unsuccessful" as no torpedoes would hit. That said, most surface attacks in my games have been torpedo and gun attacks - and most of those result in at least 1 torp hit. God alone knows how many they fire to get that result though, as number of torpedoes expended isn't in combat reports for surface attacks.

In the end, I'm trying to understand the factors that drive success / failure that I can control. My analyses showed that high aggression also lend to the sub getting sighted and attacked more often (not really a surprise). It also showed where this was happening - mostly around the home islands and the DEI. The DEI is due to shallow water, I think (can't nail that one down yet), and the HI is probably due to air power - as my analyses of his (the AIs) ops showed that he was very successful where I had no / inexperienced air cover and utter failure when I did have good air cover. I have since moved my aggressive boats back a bit and they have been more successful. I also found putting the less skilled skippers in areas with suspected poor air cover - around the Marshalls and Marianas as well as the middle of the Philippine sea can lead to good results. They are also effective "trip wires" and scouts for larger forces.

[Banzan]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Well, first of all, I suggest you modify the thread title to "Need advice---No AI please"

If the AI looks in here and reads all this stuff you are royally screwed. As a matter of fact.....how do we know YOU aren't the AI just posting here to get pointers??? Hmmmmmm???

The AI never sleeps! Beware of ther most diabolic apparition of it, called Andy Mac. It notice an evil tactic on the forum, and sooner or later it appears in the game! [:D]