Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?

[Mynok]

Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: spence

I got an error message when I tried to download the link.

In WitP the IJN boats almost always get to shoot at the Allied escorts first. And the IJN ASW ships almost always get to shoot at the Allied subs first. If there was really much of a connection to reality in this particular set of mechanics the RL historical losses of each side should reflect it. They do not.

Works for me.

I'm not as familiar with the IJN sub force in WitP as I was the USN's. IIRC IJN subs had superior commanders and crew xp. Assuming they factor into a 'quick-draw' formula, that may explain some of the disparity. Just my $.02.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

To be blunt about it, I have zero concern for AI play. Sorry, but it is a good training mode for PBEM. That's it.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

To be blunt about it, I have zero concern for AI play. Sorry, but it is a good training mode for PBEM. That's it.

And also to be blunt about it I frankly get peeved with your crappy attitude and the attitude of those like you that think PBEM is the ONLY way to play this game.

I paid good money for this game and if I - and obviously others - like to play solo we should have that ability without having to get screwed in all these patches because of people like you who play PBEM and do things that none of the AI players would do. I've been dealing with this attitude since I bought the first WITP game and it's only got worse.

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

[Tomcat]

We seem to go back and forth on when to model "historical" aspects of the war, and when we want to deviate. I don't think there should be much argument that Japanese sub doctrine did not emphasize sinking merchant ships, although it appears there is some disagreement about exactly how many they did sink. If the decision to not include the familiar "Japanese sub doctrine" switch was made because "it was not historical", why then have we gone to such nonhistorical modeling of the air war? I don't claim to have the encyclopedic knowledge of WW2 that some people on this forum seem to have, but practically everything I have read points out that the Japanese had trouble replacing skilled pilots after Pearl Harbor, and certainly by the time of Midway. I just read one of Willmott's books and he pointed out in more than one place that the Japanese were not able to replace their air losses as quickly as the Americans and so went into some conflicts without some of their CV's because of this, while other CV's were operational, but with reduced air power, and this is fairly early in the war. However, AE models the Japanese as having a supply of pilots that actually increases despite losses sustained, although the quality will go down over time. There have also been questions about whether the sheer number of planes the Japanese produce is historical or not.

So, it seems sometimes we model "historically", and sometimes we don't. To the extent that I can tweak the game by modding it I am fairly tolerant of which way these decisions go. When I can't modify the game to overcome some of these decisions then I am more likely to find them annoying. Right now I am not even playing because of the problems with training pilots, although I could modify the game to somewhat compensate for the slow training rates. Personally, I don't see the harm in having a switch that let's the player choose to activate the old Japanese sub doctrine that was in WitP.

[jwilkerson]

As I've posted many times before, all of the major submarine navies had ideas, before WWII, that they would not attack merchants. Pre-war treaty agreements certainly reflected these hopes. However, once they became combatants, all these same major submairine navies abandoned same (including the Japanese).

In the first six months of the war, the IJA submarines sank something like 53 merchant ships (maybe it was 56, I've posted the exact number in previous WITP threads, but I'm on vacation right now and didn't bring all my sources with me [:)]. For those who wish to count them up, please open this book and grab a paper and pencil (as I did). http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=293.

Point is, it was impossible in WITP (and still is I think in AE) to reproduce the historical rate of IJN sinkings even with the "doctrine" switch off. I'm not sure what either (IJN or USN) of the "doctrine" switches were supposed to represent, hence we decided to remove both of these (the USN and IJN) switches in favor of switches we thought players would use more often. So for example, we now have the "Realistic Factories" and "No Unit Withdrawal" switches instead.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: dereck
And also to be blunt about it I frankly get peeved with your crappy attitude and the attitude of those like you that think PBEM is the ONLY way to play this game.

I paid good money for this game and if I - and obviously others - like to play solo we should have that ability without having to get screwed in all these patches because of people like you who play PBEM and do things that none of the AI players would do. I've been dealing with this attitude since I bought the first WITP game and it's only got worse.

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

Wah wah wah. No one's stopping you. Have at it. It's not that PBEM is the only way to play, but it is the BEST way to play. What makes me absolutely laugh out loud is the arrogance of you AI-onlies who think you know what is the best way to play. Play both. If you go back to AI, fine. But you won't. Let me know if I've missed some rule that requires me to give a crap about AI play.

PBEM doesn't mean just the GC game either.

Addendum: To be perfectly correct, I think the very best way to play is head-to-head hotseat, but that is extremely difficult to arrange. PBEM is the best combination of convenience and competition.

[denisonh]

What the sub force sinks and encounters is in large part a function of deployment more so than individual sub behavior.

If you patrol commerce lanes, you sink commerce shipping. If you are a fleet picket, you will more likely encounter Men of War.

Even US subs would go after capital ships first in encountered.

The only real issue is whether the IJN subs should go after escorts first rather than merchantmen, but since the IJN didn't really use subs in a commerce raiding role for the most part, hard to say what they would have done historically.

Do not beleive it to be all that significant, in that players will tend to employ subs in a commerce raiding role that in and of itself is ahistorical. Even the scripted AI will do this as well. So if the subs are going to be employed as commerce raiders, they need to attack the merchantmen and not the escorts.

[jwilkerson]

I think the only issue is for Allied AI players who don't want the IJN submarines making havoc on their unescorted merchant convoys. Problems include that the Japanese did go after enemy merchant ships in the first six months of the war - and Allies didn't really use convoys in the Pacific during the period.

For PBEM games, I do not think there is any issue because the players have options as to how to use their vessels on both sides.

As to Allied versus AI games, I'd like to wait a bit before we decide things are broken. The new patch changed the ASW/Submarine aspect a bit and there have not been enought reports to really know how the balance has shifted.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: dereck
And also to be blunt about it I frankly get peeved with your crappy attitude and the attitude of those like you that think PBEM is the ONLY way to play this game.

I paid good money for this game and if I - and obviously others - like to play solo we should have that ability without having to get screwed in all these patches because of people like you who play PBEM and do things that none of the AI players would do. I've been dealing with this attitude since I bought the first WITP game and it's only got worse.

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

Wah wah wah. No one's stopping you. Have at it. It's not that PBEM is the only way to play, but it is the BEST way to play. What makes me absolutely laugh out loud is the arrogance of you AI-onlies who think you know what is the best way to play. Play both. If you go back to AI, fine. But you won't. Let me know if I've missed some rule that requires me to give a crap about AI play.

PBEM doesn't mean just the GC game either.

Addendum: To be perfectly correct, I think the very best way to play is head-to-head hotseat, but that is extremely difficult to arrange. PBEM is the best combination of convenience and competition.

Mynok,

This is the last I'm going to respond to this because it's becoming a flame type posting but ...

We AI players AREN'T the ones who are arrogant and think it's the ONLY way to play. Look in a mirror - the attitude that one's way to play is the only way has been posted by more than one PBEMer and I can't recall any AI player ever saying that their way was the only way to play.

I never said that and all I said was that those like myself who like to play solo should have that ability. So get off your high-horse and realize there are people who paid just as much money for this game to be able to play it solo since that is how they enjoy it.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I think the only issue is for Allied AI players who don't want the IJN submarines making havoc on their unescorted merchant convoys. Problems include that the Japanese did go after enemy merchant ships in the first six months of the war - and Allies didn't really use convoys in the Pacific during the period.

For PBEM games, I do not think there is any issue because the players have options as to how to use their vessels on both sides.

As to Allied versus AI games, I'd like to wait a bit before we decide things are broken. The new patch changed the ASW/Submarine aspect a bit and there have not been enought reports to really know how the balance has shifted.

That doesn't take into account the fact that Japanese submarine doctrine WAS to go after warships first and that out of 184 merchant ships accounted for by the Japanese only 98 were US merchants. And that was for the entire war.

This game has gone from being a historical simulation to a Jap Fan Boy Fantasy World with no grasp of reality.

As Tomcat said if I could use the game editor to modify it back into reality I would but with this being hard coded I - and other people playing the AI - are screwed.

[Richard III]

Joe, that sounds reasonable if you are indeed open to revisting the switch issue and I`ll be happy to unofficially test it in the 3 ongoing Allied VS the AI games in progress and report actual results here. If your not interesting in re-thinking it please say so now and I won`t waste my time.

" Opinion" : Having said that, one of the things that has always make Joel & Gary`s game designs great is that they allow options that allow the player choices that make the game interesting and different . Removing the Sub switch removes a choice, which is a big deal for the AI gamer. The PBEM`ers can always use house rules.

RL.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I think the only issue is for Allied AI players who don't want the IJN submarines making havoc on their unescorted merchant convoys. Problems include that the Japanese did go after enemy merchant ships in the first six months of the war - and Allies didn't really use convoys in the Pacific during the period.

For PBEM games, I do not think there is any issue because the players have options as to how to use their vessels on both sides.

As to Allied versus AI games, I'd like to wait a bit before we decide things are broken. The new patch changed the ASW/Submarine aspect a bit and there have not been enought reports to really know how the balance has shifted.

[Sonny II]

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

Likewise if the game were designed to use the IJN sub switch it would be there.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I think the only issue is for Allied AI players who don't want the IJN submarines making havoc on their unescorted merchant convoys. Problems include that the Japanese did go after enemy merchant ships in the first six months of the war - and Allies didn't really use convoys in the Pacific during the period.

For PBEM games, I do not think there is any issue because the players have options as to how to use their vessels on both sides.

As to Allied versus AI games, I'd like to wait a bit before we decide things are broken. The new patch changed the ASW/Submarine aspect a bit and there have not been enought reports to really know how the balance has shifted.

A reasonable approach. I don't care if the option is there or not, but it should default to OFF since only a few solo players are ever going to use it.

[Richard III]

It sure seems that way when taken with all the other AE changes that cripple the US player. What I really can`t understand is: if they are going to elimnate the switch, why did they go with the Ahistorical Option, which clearly benifits the Japanese player as opposed to the Historical choice. The game was coded for both since WITP version 1.0 hence the switch ?

This game has gone from being a historical simulation to a Jap Fan Boy Fantasy World with no grasp of reality.

As Tomcat said if I could use the game editor to modify it back into reality I would but with this being hard coded I - and other people playing the AI - are screwed.

[rockmedic109]

I am not sure if it is the IJN doctrine which is to blame for the increased attacks and sinkings I am seeing or if it is the far better use of subs by the AI that is causing it.  It does cause me to use more escorts and to worry when I send smaller ships out solo to outlying outposts.....and this isn't a bad thing. 

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

It sure seems that way when taken with all the other AE changes that cripple the US player. What I really can`t understand is: if they are going to elimnate the switch, why did they go with the Ahistorical Option, which clearly benifits the Japanese player as opposed to the Historical choice. The game was coded for both since WITP version 1.0 hence the switch ?

This game has gone from being a historical simulation to a Jap Fan Boy Fantasy World with no grasp of reality.

As Tomcat said if I could use the game editor to modify it back into reality I would but with this being hard coded I - and other people playing the AI - are screwed.

Actually the increased Japanese sinking of my merchant ships was one of the easier things for me to deal with. I'm about to confess some heresy here, so historical purists please don't read any further -- I simply modified the game to give the allies more destroyers, and made sure that I used them with supply and transport convoys. I know that this sort of thing is liable to cause heart attacks for some people, but I believe that the point of playing the game is to have fun, and we all have different ideas about what makes the game enjoyable. There are very few games I play that I don't modify, and from what I can see on various forums one of the things that attracts people to at least some games, and makes them loyal, is the ability to make modifications. The more I can make AE do what I want it to do the happier I am with it.

[jazman]

ORIGINAL: Mynok



Wah wah wah. No one's stopping you. Have at it. It's not that PBEM is the only way to play, but it is the BEST way to play. What makes me absolutely laugh out loud is the arrogance of you AI-onlies who think you know what is the best way to play. Play both. If you go back to AI, fine. But you won't. Let me know if I've missed some rule that requires me to give a crap about AI play.

PBEM doesn't mean just the GC game either.

Addendum: To be perfectly correct, I think the very best way to play is head-to-head hotseat, but that is extremely difficult to arrange. PBEM is the best combination of convenience and competition.

We heard you the first time. After hearing it 527 times, it's getting repetitive.

[JohnDillworth]

Wah wah wah. No one's stopping you.

Of course one could throw down the gauntlet and email a PBEM game and see if the challange is accepted. Sorry, that was mean.[:-]