Jap ASW forces

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: foliveti
Are the people realizing these skewed Japanese results playing scenario 2.  It seems that the scenario jacks up all of the experience ratings for the Japanese at the start of the war and makes it very one sided.  I wish that a different route had been taken to create a more balanced ahistoric scenario.

Very interesting point. I'm involved in a Scenario 2 match and have been taking my lumps from subs in extraordinary ways. I confess I don't know how much the scenario selection has to do with it. But if the "nuclear subs" are caused by Scenario 2, I'm probably done with this Scenario. Subs are just completely whacked out in my game, as my opponent noted in an email earlier today.

As for wptqs's point, I think the Uber Sub vs. ASW was fixed by the most recent Hot Fix.

But I think Japanese ASW is far, far too effective against Allied subs since the Hot Fix (or perhaps the developer tweak was the preceding Hot Fix).

[Smeulders]

A quick look doesn't really show higher experience levels for Japanese sub crews in scenario two, in both scenarios they are mainly in the 50s, with somewhat lower exp for the SST.

[sfbaytf]

I'm at May 44 in my PBEM game and running the latest version. At the beginning of the war till about May 43, allied ASW is pathetic-with the exception of British DD's.

Come 1944 allied ASW is very deadly and quite effective. I've followed a consistent schedule of refitting of my ships. Don't know if it makes a difference if you don't.

Aside from DE's the PF's make great sub killers.

One thing I do notice is when I operate more than one ship in an ASW group they still don't attack in pairs. It still seems like only 1 ship will attack at a time.

Have no idea of how the latest patched version is with the early war years.

[crsutton]

Well, my two pbem games show results that are less drastic. Both are scen 2. I think my opponents are fairly good. Here are my observations.

1. Yes, Japanese subs are deadlier. Not like Miller's killers [;)] but better than I would expect. So far, I am OK with it. Allied ASW is weak but it is early war. I am upgrading ships and commanders and having better results. Lot more damaged Japanese subs.

2. Japanese ASW seems pretty effective. Not the bombers-I don't think I have been hit by a bomber but the escorts. Of course, both my opponents are devoting a lot more resources to ASW warfare so I would expect better results than historically. Still, I have lost only about half a dozen subs in my game up till June and I am very aggressive and send subs to dangerous places. Seem Ok so far.

3. American torpedoes are made of wood....Just like I would expect. I have upgraded to radar and replaced all the weak commanders and am getting a nice number of attacks but seeing little sucess. I am thinking of naming my new dog "Hit but failed to explode". This seems to be working as expected. I just have to wait until 1943.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Why on earth do you think that if the Japanese had actually chosen to run an ASW campaign like you have that somehow the Allied subs would still have destroyed their merchant marine? They most certainly wouldn't have.

The Japs even in such a scenario would not have sunk many subs, but they sure as heck would have reduced the attack opportunities and suppressed the sub campaign.

Agreed - but it should be *balanced*. If both sides want to play super ASW and have all escorts run convoy and asw duties, then the japanese should not start out with such a superior and huge qualitative advantage, especially as prewar asw doctrine was almost nonexistent for them.

[Mynok]

They don't have one. Not in my experience. They just have more resources at the beginning. As others have said above, the Allies get real good at it in year 2.

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

A quick look doesn't really show higher experience levels for Japanese sub crews in scenario two, in both scenarios they are mainly in the 50s, with somewhat lower exp for the SST.

its not their sub crews - its their captains! I find their subs prosecute about the same as the allies do, when asw is not a factor.

But their surface captains! They have way way too many 70+ commanders. I spent less than 150pps to put an ubercaptain in every dd and pb and i have completely and utterly neutralized the allied sub campaign. I got a very exasperated email from my oppenent, so i told him how i did it. He copied me - but with not nearly the same effect. Reason? My captains have aggression and naval abilities about 20+ higher - on average - than his skippers. A print screen showed most of his captains in his dd's in the mid 50's in naval, low fifties (with a few sixties and one or 2 70's) in aggression. The devs have mentioned several times that aggression will make a huge differeonce on the number of asw attack prosecutions - and the japanese skippers all have 70+ in the aggression category. Thats roughly a 40% difference on average.

Now, is this scenario 2? not sure - we are playing a very slightly modded version of one of the core scenarios (we greatly increased allied supply on the west coast, added some small integral supply in australia, increased the shipyard size at auckland by 5 and at pearl by 20, added about a dozen small tankers and maybe 30 akl's for the japanese to simulate 'captured' ships, upped the allied replacement plane rate for the wildcats and a couple of other planes(no way the allies should not be able to fill out wildcat squadrons in late 42) and other small mods - but we didnt muck at all with skippers or anything like that.

so maybe the 'root' scenario was #2, but i think it was #1.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Why on earth do you think that if the Japanese had actually chosen to run an ASW campaign like you have that somehow the Allied subs would still have destroyed their merchant marine? They most certainly wouldn't have.

And if BurOrd had chosen to test the Mk XIV torpedoes, they wouldn't have been semi-worthless. Even if Japan HAD put more effort into ASW, their equipment and doctrine would still have been second rate.

And their naval commanders ARE over-rated. Take away Tanaka's victories and the rest come off average or below for the whole war.

[Mynok]

It doesn't take first-rate doctrine or equipment to keep a sub's head down. They wouldn't have sunk many subs but they would have made it much more difficult than the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel experience that it actually was.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree - but how much is this happening since Patch 2 + hotfix 3 (1097)?

I've lost three ASW TF escorts since the hotfix, and about two months of game time. Probably about a third of the rate previously. OTOH, it's hard to normalize since I'm getting lots of DEs now and a lot of the AMs and KVs are in port. The DEs tend to strike first and ask questions later.

I agree that ASW ships should be hard to hit, unless they got sloppy in their watchstanding or predictable in their routes.

[SqzMyLemon]

I'd just like to say that my ASW efforts to date have not worked at all. Allocating air assets, SC hunting groups, DD and PB escorted convoys, changing captains to more aggressive and skilled, has done squat for me on the Japanese side. I've only 5 confirmed kills of Allied submarines up to Feb. 1st, 42. On the other hand, I've lost roughly 40 ships now to Allied subs. Every game, for whatever reason, seems to have different experiences. It seems in my PBEM, the Allies have the uber subs. I can't speak for the effectiveness of the Japanese subs, because mine can't find anything. [8|]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I agree that ASW ships should be hard to hit, unless they got sloppy in their watchstanding or predictable in their routes.

A little OT - it was well done with respect to the suddenness and overwhelming nature of the damage - do you remember the scene in the movie The Cruel Sea where the Compass Rose (IIRC) was torpedoed and sank?

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: jackyo123

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

A quick look doesn't really show higher experience levels for Japanese sub crews in scenario two, in both scenarios they are mainly in the 50s, with somewhat lower exp for the SST.

its not their sub crews - its their captains! I find their subs prosecute about the same as the allies do, when asw is not a factor.

Haven't checked if there is a difference between the capabilities of the Japanese commanders in scenario 1 and 2, but I haven't heard there would be any, so if this is a problem, it's probably a problem in all scenarios.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'd just like to say that my ASW efforts to date have not worked at all. Allocating air assets, SC hunting groups, DD and PB escorted convoys, changing captains to more aggressive and skilled, has done squat for me on the Japanese side. I've only 5 confirmed kills of Allied submarines up to Feb. 1st, 42. On the other hand, I've lost roughly 40 ships now to Allied subs. Every game, for whatever reason, seems to have different experiences. It seems in my PBEM, the Allies have the uber subs. I can't speak for the effectiveness of the Japanese subs, because mine can't find anything. [8|]

If you have five kills by Feb. 1942 you're way ahead of history.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I agree that ASW ships should be hard to hit, unless they got sloppy in their watchstanding or predictable in their routes.

A little OT - it was well done with respect to the suddenness and overwhelming nature of the damage - do you remember the scene in the movie The Cruel Sea where the Compass Rose (IIRC) was torpedoed and sank?

I saw that movie once, probably thirty years ago now. I don't recall that scene, but there are lots of accounts of DDs and smaller sinking in a minute or two.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'd just like to say that my ASW efforts to date have not worked at all. Allocating air assets, SC hunting groups, DD and PB escorted convoys, changing captains to more aggressive and skilled, has done squat for me on the Japanese side. I've only 5 confirmed kills of Allied submarines up to Feb. 1st, 42. On the other hand, I've lost roughly 40 ships now to Allied subs. Every game, for whatever reason, seems to have different experiences. It seems in my PBEM, the Allies have the uber subs. I can't speak for the effectiveness of the Japanese subs, because mine can't find anything. [8|]

If you have five kills by Feb. 1942 you're way ahead of history.

5 Allied subs by Feb '42 is quite good.

[treespider]

Ok...riddle me this - if the Allied player places 30 subs outside of Tokyo and the Japanese cram the hex with ASW and sinks 5 subs is that comparable to history?

Maybe we can get some industrious soul to map out the patrols of all the early war US subs and try to replicate that and then compare the results to history...

...until that happens saying you lost 0, 5, 10, or 20 subs by a particular date is interesting but essentially meaningless...

[witpqs]

Presuming reasonable use of subs - as opposed to suicide subs - 5 by Feb '42 seems to me to be a favorable tally.

[Brady]

On the Flip side losing 40 Ships to Allied subs in a couple months at the start of the war is a bit nuts, but as Treespider said this is happing in a vacume so to speak.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'd just like to say that my ASW efforts to date have not worked at all. Allocating air assets, SC hunting groups, DD and PB escorted convoys, changing captains to more aggressive and skilled, has done squat for me on the Japanese side. I've only 5 confirmed kills of Allied submarines up to Feb. 1st, 42. On the other hand, I've lost roughly 40 ships now to Allied subs. Every game, for whatever reason, seems to have different experiences. It seems in my PBEM, the Allies have the uber subs. I can't speak for the effectiveness of the Japanese subs, because mine can't find anything. [8|]

If you have five kills by Feb. 1942 you're way ahead of history.

Oh really? During the first three months of the real war japanese destroyed 6 allied submarines. [8|]

December -41:
K XVI (Japanese submarine)
O-20 (destroyers)
SS Sealion (damaged by bombing, later scuttled)

January -42:
K XVIII (badly damaged by destroyers, scuttled)

February -42:
K VII (land-based bombers while in harbor)
SS Shark (destroyers)