Jap ASW forces

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: spence

Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?

I didn't code the DB, just showing you what it is.

If you don't want your opponant using the Glen to search, then a house rule can fix this. Even if you change it to a recon plane in the DB, it will still be able to carry out the Naval Search mission type, so really a House Rule is the only way to accomplish what you want at this time.

[witpqs]

I really don't know much about the Glen, but as a plane that had to be assembled each time it was used and considering the environment it was used in, I would've figured it would have a higher service rating.

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: spence

Unless the Glen is some sort of quantum mechanics device searching a single 30 degree arc at max range 4 is all the plane can manage in half a day/before fuel exhaustion. It quite simply should not be able to search. If the IJ Player wants to launch single plane attacks on the US mainland with his Glens or wants to perform recon that's fine but naval search should not be allowed.

The serviceability of the Glen is 1?

If I'm reading the search arc display correctly, the Glen can search a maximum of a 20 degree arc in one day. Hardly seems worth getting het up about.

[ckammp]

All the Japanese float planes have a service rating of 1.
Not sure about all the Allied float planes, but I do know the Kingfisher also has a service rating of 1.

[witpqs]

Oh, I understand, I was just thinking of the special situation of the Glen needing to be assembled before flight and thought that might increase the maintenance burden.

[Mynok]

Seems at minimum they should only be granted one flight a day for sure.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: PzB

Many historical correct comments and observations but remember that it's impossible to re-create the FOW, strengths and weaknesses that existed in the different camps when war broke out in 42. Indeed I also got a long list of things I'd love to see changed;

I think to much info is revealed in general!

A sub is attacked by asw vessels and lots of info is immediately given to the player - in real life it would be very hard for the sub to spot much while diving deep, not to talk about transmitting something that will be received and copied.

Same with land combat, a clear cut picture of the opponent is immediately visible if you perform a bombardment mission and a very handy odds indicator helps the player to know what it will take to capture the base.

Japanese culture and infighting in Navy - Army was something that deeply affected the outcome of the war...same as the poor coordination and cooperation between ABDA forces in 42 did. But how to simulate this?

Also players have access to all possible info and hindsight related to WWII, units and leaders.

And so we can go on and on and my 2c is that we have to use house rules to maximise realism or play AE more as a game simulation. It's certainly a limit on how much Matrix can spend on AE and we have already gotten a lot of bang for the few buck we spent on this game - no matter how good it becomes it will never be good enough for everyone. So either we stick with it, enjoy the ride and come with constructive criticism or simply go and do something else!

Pretty much agree with everything you said here. Thanks.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Oh, I understand, I was just thinking of the special situation of the Glen needing to be assembled before flight and thought that might increase the maintenance burden.

That might be a good adjustment. Move it up to 3 or 4 to acct for this.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I do not quite understand what this thread is all about. [/align] [/align]When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW. [/align] [/align]When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW. [/align] [/align]So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.[/align] [/align][:'(][/align] [/align] [/align]

I think this statement could put an end to this thread [;)]

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.

The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships

Now assigning Fletcher , Tanaka and other such commanders to ASW and Subs i have an issue with .

The Glen was there to find target for subs and it was good at searching still its only 1 plane . Increasing the SR is fair enough.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.

The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships

Now assigning Fletcher , Tanaka and other such commanders to ASW and Subs i have an issue with .

The Glen was there to find target for subs and it was good at searching still its only 1 plane . Increasing the SR is fair enough.

The Glen wasn´t there to find targets for subs, that´s how it´s used in the game but this is not at all comparable to what it was capable in real life. Glens weren´t used on naval search.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

If the US had worked out their mark 14 torpedo was cr@p at the start of the war,  I think it would have possibly taken a full year off the Pacific conflict.
If you have reliable US torpedo's from the start it does seriously unbalance the game.  Unless you are playing as Japan and want to give the US AI an advantage, or possibly if you are playing a newbie as the US player

But having competent Japanese ASW from the start of the game doesn't? Face it..., the same arguements apply to both sides. The only difference is that the US eventually fixed all the torpedo problems (it was still scandalously slow to do so)..., but Japanese ASW only managed to work their way up from lousy to mediocre.

The problem is you cant limit technical issues as there is no stop , if You fix the US torpedos you fix the Japanese Depth Charges ( yes the first is crap) , Japanese Engines in the Hien , B29s etc there is no end to it. Putting the straight jacket on tactics and strategy is the the domain of the player and i doubt you will have many if any Japanese players who will play a game with unescorted ships

Didn't ask to limit "technical issues"..., only to be fair with both sides. US had technical problems with the Mk XIV, and they are in the game that way with an option to "fix" them if the player(s) desire to do so. Japanese ASW was technically crap, but that's not the way it is in the game. Why not make it the garbage it historically was in the game..., with an option to "fix" it if the player(s) desire to do so?

Now that would be FAIR.

[Miller]

Before 43 my IJN ASW sank a whopping total of five subs. Anyone who thinks Allied torps should be switched to fully working at the start of the game to counter this "Improved" early war ASW is misguided in my opinion.

At the start of 43 the IJN can convert/upgrade a lot of old DDs and APDs into potent ASW craft, something they did'nt do in real life until it was much too late. Perhaps these conversions could be put back in the game until late 43, to co-incide with the American torps working properly?

I know come Sept 43 I am going to start taking it up the sh****r with regards to losses from subs, but that was the story in real life I will just have to live with it.

[xj900uk]

In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)

The IJN was short of destroyers from the beginning. Since the admirals were planning for a great surface battle, they didn't want to waste their DDs on secondary missions.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

In RL the IJN didn't start converting ships to serious ASW platforms until fairly late (Oct?) '44, and also built a few small CVL's/CVE's to help with searches (ironically 5 out of the 6 built were sunk very quickly by the subs they were supposed to be searching for)

Seems like the Devs gave the Japanese player the option of upgrading to ASW platforms a bit early. But keep in mind, that conversions to take time to complete, you might start it in 1943, but the unit might not be ready until 1944.

Also, Allied players do have the option of simply holding back their USN subs until the torpedo issue is fixed...you don't have to send them out without their teeth. Although given my experiences and the ineffectiveness of Japanese ASW attacks in my games, even sending out the toohtless subs that only get 1 out of 10 Torpedos to hit and explode is still a winning course of action.

I think I agree with LargeSlowTarget on this issue.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's a lonely feeling to think few if anyone is encountering the kinds of things I'm seeing.

I've seen them. As I've said, I have several (3) games going at once, and in two of them the 'balance' between allied/jap subs and allied/jap asw is just way off. If the Japs have super ASW because of a design decision to 'beef up asw effectiveness', then the Allies should certainly have the same. I think a major factor is the super scores for the Japanese captains, the propensity of subs to attack escorts, and the subs firing 6 torpedoes at everything in sight.

I think the easiest solutions, as I've said before and will mod into my next game, would be increased DC lethality, decreased Jap skipper scores, and increased naval scores for lower ranked US commanders (lt cmdrs and the like - those who would be commanding escort vessels and sub hunters).

The big change, that I dont think they will be able to code, is to tremendously decrease the likelihood that the subs go after escorts.

Last night - typical encounter - Japanese PB escorting 4 6000 ton xAK's filled with fuel. Allied sub fires a full spread of 4 torps - at the PB (a dinky little 10 knot PB with 1700 mile range).

?????

Definitely needs tweaking. Those fat and juicy merchants were just asking to be picked off. Why would the us skipper fire at the silly little PB that cant even keep up with his sub? It was no threat.

[spence]

Definitely needs tweaking. Those fat and juicy merchants were just asking to be picked off. Why would the us skipper fire at the silly little PB that cant even keep up with his sub? It was no threat.

The coding here directly contradicts USN doctrine. In the early war a US sub commander would have put in front of a courts martial for wasting torpedoes on the escorts. When the order went out to wage unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan the priorities set clearly put the freighters ahead of the PBs. Major warships might have been first but PBs are not them: think carriers and battleships and "big" (definition varies in the heat of combat) cruisers. DDs were not considered worthy targets until mid-1944. The USN did not have a flawed strategic vision of how submarines would contribute to final victory; only flawed weapons. The IJN was the proud possessor of the opposite.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I do not quite understand what this thread is all about. [/align] [/align]When I play Allies gainst Japanese AI, I curse Japanese subs and Allied ASW. [/align] [/align]When I play Japanese against Allied AI, I curse Allied subs and Japanese ASW. [/align] [/align]So overall subs and ASW of both sides seems perfectly ballanced.[/align] [/align][:'(][/align] [/align] [/align]

[:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

Jeeeez. Let's all just play awile before making any huge assumptions.