How bad is the allied sub doctrine

[madmickey]

I have read several old threads about how bad the allied sub doctrine is. Is that still true?

[Gem35]

it's awful game is unplayable OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!...ok i'm just kidding [;)]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

I have read several old threads about how bad the allied sub doctrine is. Is that still true?

It's the pits. Allied subs will do virtually nothing to start the war, and become good only for ferrying cadres and mining.

Try it yourself, then you'll know. [:)]

[madmickey]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Don't agree to the Allied sub doctrine because it is BOGUS! Your subs don't fire at anything. Don't overcommit in Burma...use the SEAsia Chinese.

ORIGINAL: Rob322

Oh yes, totally agree with Ron S. NO Allied Sub doctrine, all you have in a bunch of subs that come home low and gas but loaded up with torpedoes. [:-] Certainly you need to spend some time weeding out weak commanders from the US Sub force but turning off that doctrine does most of the trick. Your torps suck but you will score some kills. The only drawback is that your subs will get shot at more often but as Japanese ASW is not the most fearsome force on the planet, let those guys earn their commands.

I saw this post on AAR

[BraveHome]

On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.

So there's always two sides....

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: BraveHome

On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.

So there's always two sides....

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Allied Sub Doctrine is a reflection of false assumptions, not anything anywhere near the historical situation.

[Hornblower]

I personnally have no problem with it. I attribute it to the Mk 14 early on, and i know my subs will get them in the end..

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: BraveHome

On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.

So there's always two sides....

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Allied Sub Doctrine is a reflection of false assumptions, not anything anywhere near the historical situation.

While that may be, the thread had to do with its playability, not its historicity....[;)]

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: BraveHome

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: BraveHome

On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.

So there's always two sides....

This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Allied Sub Doctrine is a reflection of false assumptions, not anything anywhere near the historical situation.

While that may be, the thread had to do with its playability, not its historicity....[;)]

Ok i admit it, i looked up historicity to see if that was a legit word!!!! [:'(]

[BraveHome]

ORIGINAL: Hornblower


Ok i admit it, i looked up historicity to see if that was a legit word!!!! [:'(]

Oh ye of little faith! [;)]