Matrix Games Forums

Most players want high aggression leaders because they will always fly or attack. They miss the boat[;)]...letting the local commander make decisions is often for the best.

You have multiple roles for Subs...from dropping mines, to pickets, to cargo raiding, to fleet support...

Don't forget to change their threat level too...where appropriate. Nothing wrong with using Low threat and a high aggression captain for instance.

Ah, that's helpful! I'll adjust threat tolerance for those subs at sea (until I can replace commanders when the subs return to port to refuel).

Just to clarify – low-aggression commanders wasn’t a suggestion, it was a question. I don’t know the answer or what impact it would/could/might have on late war US Sub survive-ability.

That's something that Jeff (Lowpe) has discussed at length in some of his AAR writing, so your comment jogged my memory. Jeff has played with settings in various ways, with some good success reported.

For sub commanders, a high Naval increases ASW survival.

The low threat option sounds good, will maybe focus them on non warship targets in a convoy.

I've always focused on high Naval and high Aggression ratings. I'm going to switch over to high Naval and low aggression, as much as I can. I'll also switch a goodly number of subs over to a Low threat tolerance. When all that's done, I'll be able to see if it seems to make any difference in Allied sub survivability in hostile waters.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've always focused on high Naval and high Aggression ratings. I'm going to switch over to high Naval and low aggression, as much as I can. I'll also switch a goodly number of subs over to a Low threat tolerance. When all that's done, I'll be able to see if it seems to make any difference in Allied sub survivability in hostile waters.

The aggression shouldn't be too low. Low sixties/high fifties works but forties would result in few attacks. The term "aggression" doesn't just mean "tendency to attack", it also means "patience level". Aggression in the high seventies will have your impatient sub commanders fire at the first escort they see or surface to use their deck gun when they still have torpedoes left. Mid-level aggression patiently sneaks past the escorts more often to take a shot at bigger fish.

John just sent this email: "Turn is here.  [I'm] going to run a couple of errands and then I shall jump on the turn.  Figure a couple of hours until you see it."

He sent that at 11 a.m. eastern time. There's no way the turn is going to arrive in a couple of hours. He'll probably send it sometime between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., with a 40% chance that something will come up so that it won't arrive until after 9 p.m.

Oh, ye of little faith - and much experience! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John just sent this email: "Turn is here.  [I'm] going to run a couple of errands and then I shall jump on the turn.  Figure a couple of hours until you see it."

He sent that at 11 a.m. eastern time. There's no way the turn is going to arrive in a couple of hours. He'll probably send it sometime between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., with a 40% chance that something will come up so that it won't arrive until after 9 p.m.

I vote for sometime tomorrow!!

John has exceeded my expectations regarding picking up and continuing this game :]

The motto of all militaries: "HURRY UP AND WAIT!"

The turn arrived at 3:28 eastern time. [8D]

Well it's 4:50PM Eastern and no posts about the turn yet from you [:-] [:D]

That's 'cause I went for a run up Lavender Mountain in Georgia summertime heat and humidity (a few ripe blackberries were the only bright spot). Now I'm preparing a message for church tonight, as our preacher is handling other matters. So it's been a busy afternoon. I'll get back home around 8:30 p.m. eastern, at which time I'll sit down with the turn and see what's up with the evil Japanese.

8/21/44

After church this evening, I joined my family for dinner, sat down to talk for awhile, and the next thing I knew, it was 2 a.m. and I'd gotten in a solid five hours of sleep already. Now it's 3:30 a.m. and I'm wide awake. Time to read, I suppose.

KB: Enemy carrier TFs withdraw from the Miri sector and seemingly vanish into the Java Sea. I'd anticipated an all-out assault on Miri's oil production, so this was a nice surprise.

Peep Show: No enemy fighters over Formosa today, so Allied bombers worked unopposed. John has loaded up Shanghai with aircraft. Allied army will reach Swatow day after tomorrow. Lots of enemy divisions bound (I think) for this region. Let'm come into the open, where Allied bombers can get at 'em.

In Indochina, the main Allied stack is two hexes from Hanoi; down south, an important attack tomorrow on the outskirts of Saigon; and I think John is planning some kind of counteroffensive in the Thailand region, possibly by land and sea.

KB: Enemy carrier TFs withdraw from the Miri sector and seemingly vanish into the Java Sea.

Perhaps to Singapore to rearm?

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Most players want high aggression leaders because they will always fly or attack. They miss the boat[;)]...letting the local commander make decisions is often for the best.

You have multiple roles for Subs...from dropping mines, to pickets, to cargo raiding, to fleet support...

Don't forget to change their threat level too...where appropriate. Nothing wrong with using Low threat and a high aggression captain for instance.

I have always wondered if low aggression sub commanders would more likely bypass shooting at an escort and target a merchant instead. I tend to have high aggression commanders and find that my subs target low priority escorts about half the time when attacking TFs-usually missing and then getting pounded in return. Never tested it though.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Most players want high aggression leaders because they will always fly or attack. They miss the boat[;)]...letting the local commander make decisions is often for the best.

You have multiple roles for Subs...from dropping mines, to pickets, to cargo raiding, to fleet support...

Don't forget to change their threat level too...where appropriate. Nothing wrong with using Low threat and a high aggression captain for instance.

I have always wondered if low aggression sub commanders would more likely bypass shooting at an escort and target a merchant instead. I tend to have high aggression commanders and find that my subs target low priority escorts about half the time when attacking TFs-usually missing and then getting pounded in return. Never tested it though.

I have noticed this same trend. I am going to try the "low aggression commander" tactic as subs come back to port for replenishment and see if I notice any difference.

I would think that a low aggression commander would be put off by the presence of the escorts and not attack at all.

Have to admit I have never tested it though.