Jap ASW forces

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The problem here is that there is zero comparison. This is apples and oranges comparing the historical results against a player that already knows what to do to fix the problem day 1.

Yes I know. I say that if japanese player can't sink 60+ allied subs in this game, there's definitely something wrong with the game. [:D] Because every IJ player will use or train ASW planes and TFs from a day one. Like allied player knows what to do from a day one.

Historical comparisions are pointless. In real war US didn't lose any Essex-class carrier. What if japanese player sunk for example 4 of them? Is there something wrong with the game? Definitely not I think.

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

EDIT: One more thing. There was only one real WWII. But we players are running simultaneously thousands of WWIIs. So some will get high losses, some will get low losses.

[mdiehl]

How many did the Allies lose in the pacific? Seems pretty realistic to me.

Something like nineteen American ones to Japanese surface ASW, as I recall, and one or two to Japanese a.c. The US lost more operationally (submerged during training exercise, did not surface), groundings (for ex S-39) and circular run torpedoes (for ex, Tang) than they did to any active form of Japanese ASW. The biggest danger to USN subs, judging by "missing presumed lost" stats and the areas where lost, was mines, some of which were probably placed by the USAAF late in the war.

[mdiehl]

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: PzB

I think ASW is much more realistic in AE than in stock WitP.
In real life doctrine was the decisive factor regarding both how Japan defended against enemy subs and deployed their own boats.

Playing as Japan I've seen my subs taken a beating quite a few times already after only 3 months of war, true mines have sunk most of them but US asw wasn't truly great in 42 as mentioned before.

If you effectively manage both your offensive and defensive dispositions in AE related to subs and ASW it will make a great difference. Both sides need to train their ac in the ASW role, deploy convoy systems and escort their ships. Sending out unescorted ships is really dangerous and I expect the US subs to become a great menace when reliable torpedoes and radar comes into play.

True, Jap subs are effective; maybe the react feature got something to do with it?
- With reduced react range of 1 this has changed a bit I feel. Still, Jap subs achieved some great successes against US warships during WWII; if they had concentrated on merchant ships and convoys they would undoubtedly have achieved more - but this is again doctrine which the individual player now can invent himself.

My 2c is that I will have to play into 43-44 before I come with any further remarks about sub / asw capabilities.

+1.

Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

I do think that the number of attacks on escorts seems kinda odd. I also think that the one big handicap-the 800 lb. gorilla-that has gotten short shrift here is the Mk 14. The Japanese player is allowed to be aggressive as hell doctrinally and this pays in spades with larger numbers of sinkings. The Allied player (particularly USN) can be as aggressive as they want, but it doesn't matter because the Mk. 14 will handcuff allied success until 1943.

A more fair 'apples to apples' comparison would be with the 'faulty torpedoes' switch turned OFF for allies. This would lead to quite a bit of howling from IJ players though...

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Sorry, but I just don't buy that argument. In this game players use their subs more aggressively that in real war. I see allied submarines patrolling weeks one hex away from Nagoya or Yokosuka, no wonder they get sunk some day or another. There's no need to rest or train the crew or do major overhauls. Basicly subs are at sea all the time, and that is very ahistorical or "deviation". IRL subs spend weeks at port between war patrols. So inevitably losses must be higher, because there so much more active subs and ASW targets.

Historical ship losses or "capabilities" are not good measure to evaluate game results, when we are playing this game ahistorical way. And that's how we all are playing it.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Come on... it's a game. We want to play & win. Not to reconstruct history as it is known.
If you want to play back, just watch a documentary movie, keep away from PBEM WITPAE game...

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I do think that the number of attacks on escorts seems kinda odd. I also think that the one big handicap-the 800 lb. gorilla-that has gotten short shrift here is the Mk 14. The Japanese player is allowed to be aggressive as hell doctrinally and this pays in spades with larger numbers of sinkings. The Allied player (particularly USN) can be as aggressive as they want, but it doesn't matter because the Mk. 14 will handcuff allied success until 1943.

A more fair 'apples to apples' comparison would be with the 'faulty torpedoes' switch turned OFF for allies. This would lead to quite a bit of howling from IJ players though...

If allied have good torpedoes from a day one and then there is this "aggressive submarine doctrine" that everyone is using, I think the game would be over long before 1944. No more japanese tankers left...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Well, that does beg the question, of course, Mr Diehl. In our portion of the game philosophy, we made an attempt to give everyone as close to a historical tool kit, as humanly possible, and let the player determine how to use those tools. There’s really no way to build training and doctrinal impedimenta into the system – not unless you want to tack a few zeros onto the cost, so it has to be open ended, in game terms, to work at all.

In a CPX environment, where players are limited to a doctrinal utilization, things work pretty much like they are supposed to. Conversely, a good player, with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, will find some creative uses for those same tools.

Guess what I’m saying is that deviations from training and doctrine are anticipated and not unexpected. Hopefully, the opponent will also deviate in an effective manner. This is, after all, the point of the whole thing, yeah?

btw, I ain't yankin' your chain, bro, just trying to explain and pose the question.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

So why there's problem if japanese player can sunk more subs than historically? I just don't get it.

It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Have you played WITPAE yet?
No? Why are you bothering people with your quite "theoretical" approach?

[Rainer]

He doesn't even own it. Neither does he own WitP.
Mdiehl is an old story and a mightily boring story from the beginning

[JWE]

Oh please, oh please, oh please guys, don't do this. There's some valid points that should be addressed for the benefit of all. Patience - geduld meine freunde, bitte.

[Rainer]

Agreed. I see your point.


"Patience is a high virtue. Every opportunity should be used to improve" (Sign at a railway gate crossing highway B9 near Bonn)

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

Wow, this is an inaccurate summary.

In my game with Miller, I started off with the same tactic that worked in WitP and that was used in the war - scattered, small TFs. When those TFs began getting clobbered, I switched to rear bases and began using large, escorted convoys. That's when some tweaks were made by the developers (patches) and mayhem broke loose - I started loosing ridiculous numbers of escorts (including DDs) and I was losing dozens of ships in large, mined ports that were patroled by ASW aircraft and TFs. Miller has acknowledged that his subs have been on "steroids" in this game. What else am I supposed to do? I even stood down every transport on the map for about a month at one point in the game. So what was my flawed strategy?

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It's a deviation from Japanese training and doctrine for them to have that kind of success. A game in which the Japanese sink three times as many submarines as their historical capability could achieve, by incorporating changes the Japanese never did successfully implement, makes no more sense than a game in which USN submarines start the war with torpedoes that run 100% hot straight and normal and explode as desired on every shot.

Well, that does beg the question, of course, Mr Diehl. In our portion of the game philosophy, we made an attempt to give everyone as close to a historical tool kit, as humanly possible, and let the player determine how to use those tools. There’s really no way to build training and doctrinal impedimenta into the system – not unless you want to tack a few zeros onto the cost, so it has to be open ended, in game terms, to work at all.

In a CPX environment, where players are limited to a doctrinal utilization, things work pretty much like they are supposed to. Conversely, a good player, with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight, will find some creative uses for those same tools.

Guess what I’m saying is that deviations from training and doctrine are anticipated and not unexpected. Hopefully, the opponent will also deviate in an effective manner. This is, after all, the point of the whole thing, yeah?

btw, I ain't yankin' your chain, bro, just trying to explain and pose the question.

geduld meine freunde, bitte

That is the way I see it as well.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

Wow, this is an inaccurate summary.

In my game with Miller, I started off with the same tactic that worked in WitP and that was used in the war - scattered, small TFs. When those TFs began getting clobbered, I switched to rear bases and began using large, escorted convoys. That's when some tweaks were made by the developers (patches) and mayhem broke loose - I started loosing ridiculous numbers of escorts (including DDs) and I was losing dozens of ships in large, mined ports that were patroled by ASW aircraft and TFs. Miller has acknowledged that his subs have been on "steroids" in this game. What else am I supposed to do? I even stood down every transport on the map for about a month at one point in the game. So what was my flawed strategy?

Sorry you feel that way.

"I think Dan's(Canoerebel) early tactics were faulty, he was sending out lots of little TFs that did not have any escorts....sitting ducks for my subs. I am still seeing attacks whereby I hit a transport but there is no ASW counter-attack, not even a "xx fails to locate sub" message, so I'm not sure if he is still using this strategy in quiet areas."

Miller's summary of your failure to escort your TFs until months into the war sounds like this cost you months of heavy losses. You've briefly alluded to this in your AAR as well, amidst more general and prolific complaints of the subwar in AE. For whatever reason, your mileage really has varied from most.

When those packets 'began getting clobbered' did you adopt a different tactic quickly or carry on for months of two day turns before changing? Perhaps I misread your AAR and Miller's summary-both suggested considerable delay before you changed. Miller was absolutely right in gutting your fleet for as long as he could with his available tools.

Have you heard of another player that stuck with this unescorted strategy as long as you did and lost as many ships as you did before switching tactics?

Sorry if this sounds judgemental or harsh, Canoerebel. I respect your gameplay and enjoy your AAR, but respectfully submit that you may not be in the most objective position to advise re:effective ASW tactics in the game.

[Shark7]

I still think all of this can be accounted for simply because Japanese players have the 60+ years of hindsight and analysis that tells us what the Japanese did historically was a colossal blunder. So we don't make that blunder.

I use escorted convoys along with air and ASW TF patrols of the major lines of communication. And I don't mean an ASW TF here or there with some land based air thrown into the mix...I'm talking heavy patrols. My strategy is to deny the use of the waters in my major convoy routes to the enemy as much as possible...they can't sink my merchant fleet if they are constantly driven out of the best hunting grounds.

I'm sure most if not all Japanese players do similar. We have the advantage of knowing what will happen if we don't. It has not so much to do with equipment as it has to do with the tenacity of our ASW strategy, I personally am very committed to keeping Allied subs at bay as long as possible.

And in the end, it won't matter, the massive air power of the US will eventually deny me use of those convoy lanes if the submarines don't. Even using an aggresive and well planned ASW campaign, I can only stall the inevitable for a short period of time.

[Nomad]

I agree with Shark7. As an Allied player I have Saratoga loaded with 2 Naval SBD squadrons and 3 Marine SBD squadrons. They are all set on ASW 60%, 30% training, and 10% rest. They have the maximum number of pilots. Sara is patrolling the area of the West coast. In conjunction with Sara, I have 5 4 ship ASW TFs with good commanders on all the ships and in charge of the TFs. If you want to, and are willing to put forth the effort, you can neutralize the IJN sub problem.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Hats off to those players (like Miller) that recognize a flawed strategy of their opponents and cut their opponent's guts out over it. [&o] Doom on those players-axis and allied alike-that fail to adapt their approach to ASW in the game to the new reality of AE.

Wow, this is an inaccurate summary.

In my game with Miller, I started off with the same tactic that worked in WitP and that was used in the war - scattered, small TFs. When those TFs began getting clobbered, I switched to rear bases and began using large, escorted convoys. That's when some tweaks were made by the developers (patches) and mayhem broke loose - I started loosing ridiculous numbers of escorts (including DDs) and I was losing dozens of ships in large, mined ports that were patroled by ASW aircraft and TFs. Miller has acknowledged that his subs have been on "steroids" in this game. What else am I supposed to do? I even stood down every transport on the map for about a month at one point in the game. So what was my flawed strategy?

Sorry you feel that way.

"I think Dan's(Canoerebel) early tactics were faulty, he was sending out lots of little TFs that did not have any escorts....sitting ducks for my subs. I am still seeing attacks whereby I hit a transport but there is no ASW counter-attack, not even a "xx fails to locate sub" message, so I'm not sure if he is still using this strategy in quiet areas."

Miller's summary of your failure to escort your TFs until months into the war sounds like this cost you months of heavy losses. You've briefly alluded to this in your AAR as well, amidst more general and prolific complaints of the subwar in AE. For whatever reason, your mileage really has varied from most.

When those packets 'began getting clobbered' did you adopt a different tactic quickly or carry on for months of two day turns before changing? Perhaps I misread your AAR and Miller's summary-both suggested considerable delay before you changed. Miller was absolutely right in gutting your fleet for as long as he could with his available tools.

Have you heard of another player that stuck with this unescorted strategy as long as you did and lost as many ships as you did before switching tactics?

Sorry if this sounds judgemental or harsh, Canoerebel. I respect your gameplay and enjoy your AAR, but respectfully submit that you may not be in the most objective position to advise re:effective ASW tactics in the game.

Miller's perception is, of course, colored by FOW. Early in the game I was using unescorted convoys and got hammered. I switched fairly quickly to escorted convoys but it made little difference. Over the past nine to twelve months of game time most of the strikes have been in escorted TFs.

[Shark7]

I'd like to pose a question, and please don't think I'm trying to be confrontational or a jerk.

Is it possible that due to the years we all played Vanilla WiTP that we got used to the Japanese sub doctrine switch being on and having Japanese subs that weren't as effective as they could be? Allied subs as well for that matter, since in the early war neither side attacked much in Vanilla.

I was personally surprised by just how well my subs have been doing. But in vanilla, I would usually play with the sub doctrine switches on. It is a big difference between the sub effectiveness in the two games. And you know that I do think that the subs have been too aggressive in AE at times.

Maybe its the fact that its two different games, but we have some expectations that AE would be more like Vanilla in this area?

Just trying to find a optional explanations on the issue. [:)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I still think all of this can be accounted for simply because Japanese players have the 60+ years of hindsight and analysis that tells us what the Japanese did historically was a colossal blunder. So we don't make that blunder.

The problem is that if the game were correct, the "option" wouldn't exist. The Japanese totally neglected ASW before the war (in much the same manner the US BurOrd neglected to test the Mk XIV torpedo). The majority of their ASW forces were poorly trained and equipped (as JWE mentioned, lucky to have hydrophones..., WWI technology).

And the IJN has WAY too many highly rated CO's available to command these assets. Their good CO's were in the surface combat fleet, the scrubs got stuck in ASW and other backwater commands. The Allies have plenty of "scrubs" in their list, and must pick and choose where to put the good CO's. The Japs are given enough good CO's to use them for everything.

The fault is not with the players who take advantage the assets they are given..., it's with the game's design itself. When the Allies were given WAY too many B-17's in the original game, people objected and the game was fixed. This is just another area that needs a "fix".