Tale of the Sheep! - JocMeister (A) vs. Lowpe (J)

[JocMeister]

Thanks for the advice guys. I had done exactly what you suggests. My settings were/are pretty much exactly as Eriks. Only thing that isn´t completely up to par is ASW rating aboard Wasps TBs and DBs. Also slightly lacking aboard the FPs. Averaging around 55-60 in ASW. 70 in NavS.

Something is just wrong with Japanese subs. They are far more potent then they should be. Especially late war. And in return the Allied subs can´t come even remotely close to their historical results. Japanese subs have rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time now. And I suspect it will continue to do so.

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]India[/font]
_____________________________________________________________________________

Some action here as the allies will try to close Chittagong. My LRCAP rained in but luckily Japanese CAP was very meager. Almost 100 DBs and TBs break through the CAP. Results are typical...allied.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Chittagong at 55,41

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 12
Ki-43-IIb Oscar x 32
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 12

Allied aircraft
Martlet II x 3
Swordfish I x 17
F4F-3 Wildcat x 18
F4F-4 Wildcat x 18
SBD-3 Dauntless x 68
TBF-1 Avenger x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Swordfish I: 1 damaged
Swordfish I: 1 destroyed by flak
F4F-3 Wildcat: 4 destroyed
F4F-4 Wildcat: 4 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CL Kinu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 1
BB Kirishima
PB Fukuei Maru, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Natori
CA Ashigara, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1
DD Asagiri
BB Kongo
SC Ch 26, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
CL Tenryu, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Shikinami

Not really important though. The important turn is tomorrow when the RN go in to close the AF. As we all know doing Naval bombardments in this game is pretty much a coin toss. So it will be a nervous turn. Force Z will blitz ahead in SCTF mode hopefully clearing the path for the slow BBs.

The CVs will have to fend for themselves tomorrow. I have to divert the LRCAP to Z and the BBs. The BBs getting the heaviest LRCAP as bombardments pretty much never does what you expect them to do. So 125 P40Es will LRCAP them with max range.

If we can close Chittagong and keep it closed the IJA will either have to start walking back to Burma or slowly wither to death.

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Thanks for the advice guys. I had done exactly what you suggests. My settings were/are pretty much exactly as Eriks. Only thing that isn´t completely up to par is ASW rating aboard Wasps TBs and DBs. Also slightly lacking aboard the FPs. Averaging around 55-60 in ASW. 70 in NavS.

Something is just wrong with Japanese subs. They are far more potent then they should be. Especially late war. And in return the Allied subs can´t come even remotely close to their historical results. Japanese subs have rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time now. And I suspect it will continue to do so.

I can assure you that you are not the only one who thinks the subs are a bit off.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Thanks for the advice guys. I had done exactly what you suggests. My settings were/are pretty much exactly as Eriks. Only thing that isn´t completely up to par is ASW rating aboard Wasps TBs and DBs. Also slightly lacking aboard the FPs. Averaging around 55-60 in ASW. 70 in NavS.

Something is just wrong with Japanese subs. They are far more potent then they should be. Especially late war. And in return the Allied subs can´t come even remotely close to their historical results. Japanese subs have rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time now. And I suspect it will continue to do so.

Maybe the answer is in the data for the subs?
Does anyone know the ratings for accuracy, effect of their torps and potential ratings for commanders??

My gut feel is the consistently under-performing IJN subs get a good deal.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Thanks for the advice guys. I had done exactly what you suggests. My settings were/are pretty much exactly as Eriks. Only thing that isn´t completely up to par is ASW rating aboard Wasps TBs and DBs. Also slightly lacking aboard the FPs. Averaging around 55-60 in ASW. 70 in NavS.

Something is just wrong with Japanese subs. They are far more potent then they should be. Especially late war. And in return the Allied subs can´t come even remotely close to their historical results. Japanese subs have rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time now. And I suspect it will continue to do so.

I suspect it might be the captains, as I mentioned. The IJN boat stats aren't that great, many are bigger and less maneuverable.

If you have a look at the good IJN captains to begin the war it's kind of insane. I think this is part of the balancing to give them a good head start, but I was shocked when I started the Allied campaign and had to deal with the very long list of mediocre commanders in 42-43 until the new crop of academy grads starts coming through.

Here is a sub of the same class that hit your CV. Up next to the Tambor, it sucks. Low maneuver and less durable. (Maybe the Type 95 torpedo having a longer range than the Mk14 plays a part too?)

Then look at the leaders. This is on Dec 8 and none have been used yet. The Japanese have a ton of great naval skill and high aggressiveness captains, while the USN replacements go all of 8 men deep before dropping off a ledge.

Most IJN subs come with pretty good leader's stats, but I can change out ALL the poor ones for the excellent choices here and even farther down the list. I never suffered for good commanders for any sub (or ship).

[Crackaces]

Obverts findings is my observations .. my second IJ opponent was absolutely furious complaining about how unrealistic the Allies Submarines are in 1943 .. after I plugged the Agaki and Kaga
I replaced the submarine commander and with a P(x) at 1943 (still bad) was able to overwhelm his ASW and "scratch 2 flatops".

The command indicies play a very important part in this game that are further modified by combat die rolls, weather, etc ..

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]Efafe[/font]
_____________________________________________________________________________

First allied amphibious operation of the war. Troops are ashore in pretty good order considering the prepp. I will need two more days to fully unload. Already landed enough to take the base though. Only a bombed out SNLF defending.

[Canoerebel]

Celebrate the first amphibious op of the war!

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Celebrate the first amphibious op of the war!

I´m not one to shy down from a celebration... [:D]

[JocMeister]

Was going to do an update but there is hardly anything to report as usual... I´ll try to get some up tomorrow. Going to watch "The hateful eight" now. [:)]

Tonight's movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3460252/

Tonight´s drinking: (Might be familiar to some of you in the states?)
http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/ballast-po ... ipa/50008/

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Something is just wrong with Japanese subs. They are far more potent then they should be. Especially late war. And in return the Allied subs can´t come even remotely close to their historical results. Japanese subs have rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time now. And I suspect it will continue to do so.

I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.

Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.

Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?

Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.

Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.

Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?

Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.

So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically? This while Allied subs can´t achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.

Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]India[/font]
_____________________________________________________________________________

As you can see not much has changed here during the last month.

Jeff has put his main defensive effort at Comilla. Some 36 units and 100k+ troops here. I think he picked a really bad place to defend and I hope to take advantage of this shortly.

I´ve already divided his Indian army in half and I hope I can now isolate and destroy the Western part first. We will start by cutting him off from Chittagong.

Outside of this screen the Allied navy is moving back towards the area after having rearmed at Madras.

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]SOPAC[/font]
_____________________________________________________________________________

Been some small actions here from Jeff. From time to time he jumps in a small CV force. So far he only sank a AMC and an APD. He also have a pretty big CA force here.

For some odd reason he also started reinforcing here. But not enough to change anything. He recently landed at the dot base of Vanikoro and he has reinforced Ndeni. Not really sure why? Once Luganville can handle 4Es these small units will quickly be destroyed. I have troops prepped all the way up to Munda. Base expansion is going rapidly. Luganville is now a Size 4 AF. Vanua Lava och Laktoro will soon start expanding the AF as well. I want their forts to reach 3 before starting on AF construction.

Fleet has pulled back for the 10/42 refits with a few exceptions.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.

Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.

Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?

Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.

So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically? This while Allied subs can´t achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.

Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.

While I also think it's a bit rough that the Allies don't have a better shot at getting the same success as historical (and I think this is due both to players using escort religeously compared to the IJ in the war and to ASW air being too strong here based on Japan's ability to run highly trained army and navy bombers all through the DEI and along most trade routes) the Japanese probably shouldn't have so many cmanders with such high stats. After all, there are enough for great sub commanders to be placed on boats to the end of the war.

The sheer number of DDs in a hex shouldn't necessarily result in stopping all IJN subs getting through. I'm not sure the exact detection levels of sonar in terms of distance, but the more ships in area the more confused the sound field would be in terms of picking up subs. i know having read some Kane and others on the Pacific sub war there was a lot of confusion around about whose boats were whose when something was detected.

It may not matter how much is in hex in terms of finding subs. Killing them yes, but I think maxing out each TF with DDs (making them 15 ships in size) provides the best point defense against subs in a CV TF. Then some ASW around the edges and the air groups search/ASW. But that's it. Nothing else to be done.

[Lokasenna]

I really don't think Japanese subs are a problem. Maybe I'm bad with subs, but this is really not my experience with them. I also don't have any problems killing them in my Allied games.

Keep in mind that Allied ASW has a built-in bonus to crew experience in the code functions prior to 1944 per page 132 of the manual. How is the XP on your escorts?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.

Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.

Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?

Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.

So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically?

Yes.

You cannot expect historical results from the game considering ahistorical style of play. No sane Japanese player is going to dispense his subs on penny-packet picket duty in the hope that a capital ship wanders into the periscope sights - they'll be actively stalking your major ports and supply lanes to hit anything that moves.

This while Allied subs can´t achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.

Again, you can't expect historical results from the game considering ahistorical style of play. No sane Japanese player is going to skimp out on convoy escorts or air ASW efforts to the extent that Japan did historically.

Sub combat isn't perfect, but the flaws effect both sides equally. Both sides are limited to a single attack per "encounter", both sides are more likely to waste shots at escorts, and both sides get the advantage of submarines that can be sent back out to sea after months of patrolling in the space of days.

Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.

No need to be. You sound just like me when I rail on to Lokasenna about the inhumanity of low level night bombing raids. A deep breath (and/or an alcoholic drink) makes things better.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I disagree here. Japanese subs in the real war performed much poorer than they ought to have, all things considered. This was mostly down to how they were used, and later Allied advances in ASW.

Japanese sub doctrine was to sink the capital ships. In that regard, they made a good showing. Wasp, Yorktown, a CVE and a couple of cruisers if I remember correctly. The real problem with Japan was that they decided to use their subs as submerged cargo ships for the far flung garrisons scattered throughout the Pacific.

Clever Japanese players can manage their subs far better than their historical counter-parts. IJN wolf-packs, led by Glen-equipped subs to scope out potential targets and equipped with a torpedo much superior to what the Allied submarine fleets were stuck using? Against US ships that haven't had the knowledge learned from the Atlantic passed on to them?

Sub combat is this games weakest point. It's the fact that attacking subs only get to shoot at a single target that really prevents the USN from getting historical results; there's none of the multi-ship attacks on convoys that you get historically.

So, basically you think its perfectly fine that Japanese subs perform much, much better then what they did historically? This while Allied subs can´t achieve even remotely close to their historical performance.

Sorry for not agreeing here. Something is bonkers with Japanese subs. The way they can completely disregard pretty much any ASW effort is just...silly.

While I also think it's a bit rough that the Allies don't have a better shot at getting the same success as historical (and I think this is due both to players using escort religeously compared to the IJ in the war and to ASW air being too strong here based on Japan's ability to run highly trained army and navy bombers all through the DEI and along most trade routes) the Japanese probably shouldn't have so many cmanders with such high stats. After all, there are enough for great sub commanders to be placed on boats to the end of the war.

The sheer number of DDs in a hex shouldn't necessarily result in stopping all IJN subs getting through. I'm not sure the exact detection levels of sonar in terms of distance, but the more ships in area the more confused the sound field would be in terms of picking up subs. i know having read some Kane and others on the Pacific sub war there was a lot of confusion around about whose boats were whose when something was detected.

It may not matter how much is in hex in terms of finding subs. Killing them yes, but I think maxing out each TF with DDs (making them 15 ships in size) provides the best point defense against subs in a CV TF. Then some ASW around the edges and the air groups search/ASW. But that's it. Nothing else to be done.

My understanding of the Japanese submarine fleet is that they were like the Americans in that submariners were an exclusive and elite club; it was a high prestige, tight knit force. I think the generally high ratings of the commanders is probably merited.

The problem with Japanese submarines wasn't the leaders, it was the doctrine and the tactical use of them. Japanese submariners didn't grasp the potency that Allied ASW developed latter in the war (and that the Allies get, with upgrades and the crew EXP bonus). The Japanese submarine arm sat about for the decisive battle that it more or less fumbled (Midway) and then wasted away on glorified delivery missions in the Solomons.

In game terms, DL is key when dealing with subs. 15 DD's is great, but a bunch of floatplanes flying round the clock naval search and ASW is better.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No need to be. You sound just like me when I rail on to Lokasenna about the inhumanity of low level night bombing raids. A deep breath (and/or an alcoholic drink) makes things better.

Well, night bombing is a different story. Low, high, whatever. It's messed up and needs an HR. Not to stop it, just to keep it in the realm of possible outcomes.

My understanding of the Japanese submarine fleet is that they were like the Americans in that submariners were an exclusive and elite club; it was a high prestige, tight knit force. I think the generally high ratings of the commanders is probably merited.

No argument they shouldn't have some good commanders. Look at the list though. There are a lot of not just good, but excellent commanders, the kind that were top ten commanders for the US. Why so many of those?

Seems it's for balance, because the boats are worse, by far than the USN. The TT are better, granted.

In game terms, DL is key when dealing with subs. 15 DD's is great, but a bunch of floatplanes flying round the clock naval search and ASW is better.

In the Atlantic ASW decimated and in large part was able to control the Uboat problem, but with a massive surface component of escorts and sub hunters all coordinating with ASW air and using German code to track the subs as well.

The Japanese didn't have the tech, the code, or the number of escorts or planes, and the Army wasn't about to involve itself in Navy matters to hunt subs. So yeah, the player here can do what the Japanese chose to ignore until to late, but we can do it too well. In game ASW air hits all kinds of subs, but for the most part air patrols were there just to keep subs under or report their positions, not to kill. USN subs have air radar and should rarely be caught off guard by air patrols.

Japanese subs on the other hand don't until late, and should be more vulnerable. It's harder for an Allied player to re-size FP groups to train endless 70+ ASW skill pilots though. There are no CS cruisers, AVs or even BBs like Yamato that carry 7 FP. So this capability is stacked to the Japanese in game, and that's not so great.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: obvert

No argument they shouldn't have some good commanders. Look at the list though. There are a lot of not just good, but excellent commanders, the kind that were top ten commanders for the US. Why so many of those?

Seems it's for balance, because the boats are worse, by far than the USN. The TT are better, granted.

My best guess is that superior ratings reflect the fact that the Japanese had been on a war footing for years prior to Dec 7th. Most USN skippers would have been stuck on peacetime training cruises, with all the fluff that entails. The Japanese submariners would have been doing it for real. Granted, there's not much chance to sink Chinese ships, but in terms of drilling the leaders and the crews it would be a profitable exercise. I'd warant that it reflects that mental difference, as it disappears once the USN starts getting it's second batch of submarine captains.

In the Atlantic ASW decimated and in large part was able to control the Uboat problem, but with a massive surface component of escorts and sub hunters all coordinating with ASW air and using German code to track the subs as well.

The Japanese didn't have the tech, the code, or the number of escorts or planes, and the Army wasn't about to involve itself in Navy matters to hunt subs. So yeah, the player here can do what the Japanese chose to ignore until to late, but we can do it too well. In game ASW air hits all kinds of subs, but for the most part air patrols were there just to keep subs under or report their positions, not to kill. USN subs have air radar and should rarely be caught off guard by air patrols.

Japanese subs on the other hand don't until late, and should be more vulnerable. It's harder for an Allied player to re-size FP groups to train endless 70+ ASW skill pilots though. There are no CS cruisers, AVs or even BBs like Yamato that carry 7 FP. So this capability is stacked to the Japanese in game, and that's not so great.

Instead, the Allies get a host of ships dedicated to ASW duty. Destroyer-escorts, Patrol Frigates, even CVE's intended to be used as floating ASW airfields. A host of second-line airframes to perform naval-search and ASW duties. His current ships get massive upgrades with potent ASW weapons. His crews get a massive boost as the war progresses to their ASW ability.

Joc has none of that yet, he's still in 1942 - the year when the Japanese submarines were a real menace to the Allies - especially their carriers. In comparison to that, radar on Japanese subs means didilly-squat.

[JocMeister]

MM,

My belief that Japanese subs are "bonkers" arn´t really based on this game. Erik had some insane successes with his subs in our game even in 44. One one occasion a RO boat hit a fleet CV with 2 TTs outside Baker. It also launched TTs at 2 other CVs the same night. Might have been FOW though and they were different subs. Luckily for me they missed. I had over 1000 ASW value in that hex when it happened. Not only the DDs in all the TFs but 3-4 ASW TFs as well.

That incident caused me to create four dedicated ASW TFs with 6 CVEs in each. All of them was maxed out with Avengers on ASW/NAVs. Despite that in the next OP Eriks subs hit 2(?) CVs. Not only that they sank some of the CVEs in the ASW TF. Its all very well documented in my old AAR.

Now if this was an isolated event that would be quite alright. Flukes happens. But when it comes to the Japanese subs its not. It happened all the time. Extremely frustrating and infuriating that no matter your precautions you are almost powerless to avoid sub attacks.