Matrix Games Forums

Such are the perils of losing the war badly. One thing people often forget is that Allied sub successes in 1944 happened after Japanese were already on the rout and lacking strength in every area. USN subs helped to mop things up faster, sure, but they did not won the war by themselves... and you should not expect them to do so in the game. I do agree that late-war escorts were ridiculously strong (that's why I advocated applying changes to subs/escorts from DaBabes to Scen 70), but air ASW, well, if you allowing your Japanese opponent to use a thousand planes, all staffed with pilots well-trained for ASW duties, on ASW, maybe the problem lies not in the air ASW model.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IJN was first navy to developed ASW patrol bomber, Q1W Lorna. Developement started September 1942.

In December 1943 the 901st Air Flotilla was organized solely for the purpose of escorting convoys.
This is interesting link, Interrogation of CPT Kamide, Commanding Officer of the 901 Air Flotilla.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... JO-74.html

Hm according to the interview the Lorna was developed later than Sep 42. Which makes it a bit hard to
believe that it was a first, maybe the usual developement issues that pestered the Japanese throughout
the war when it came to new equipment?:

Q. Did the Japanese construct a special aircraft to be used against submarines?
A. In May 1945 we developed a special plane (LORNA) for escorting convoys, which was very similar to the BETTY. Twenty of these aircraft were delivered in July 1945 and used until the end of the war.

Q1W Lorna entered service in January 1945. Developement started late 1942.

This is just interrogation of one officer. I don't think Captain Kamide had all the details about airplane developement in Japan... [:D]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

I'll let you in on a little "SECRET" - the result of a badly broken game:

Don't bother with IJN (or any Allied) bombers for aerial ASW purposes. Train your IJA bomber units (Sallys and Helens) to higher levels (60+) in Low Naval and ASW. After that you'll never experience any serious trouble from those nasty Allied subs again. They won't dare move away from their air cover, and will only have use in a defensive role. IJA bombers are the super ASW weapon . . . until the developers come out of their state of denial and bother to fix the game. [:D] [[8|]]

Thanks for the laugh. Operating submarines under an enemy air ASW umbrella in WWII was ranging from extremely dangerous to outright suicidal. The game reflects that quite well I´d say.
E class escorts might be a bit on the strong side but thats off topic in here anyway.

If a Japanese player decides to train his bombers groups on ASW then he cannot not train those units on ground bombing at the same time. If a plane flies ASW, it doesn´t bomb your ports or airfields or ground troops or ships.
The game is a complex network of tradeoffs, just in case this information has escaped your well funded analysis.
[8D]

Not to downplay the danger as it was always dangerous in heavily patrolled areas, Allied subs did this on a regular basis. The difference was excellent air seach radar that allowed them to dive many times before ever being seen by Japanese aircraft. In areas with heavy air patrol, Allied sub doctrine was to lay doggo under the waves during the day and then surface to feed on Japanese merchants in the night hours. Something they could do very well after they got 21 CM radar. Using radar, Allied subs were stalking the virtually blind Japanese merchants on the surface long after it became very dangerous for Axis subs to do so.
Sadly this is not reflected in the game at all and Japanese air search works just as well as the Allied and Allied subs always attack submerged and then get hammered by ASW forces that in real life had a very difficult finding and attacking them....

In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Not to downplay the danger as it was always dangerous in heavily patrolled areas, Allied subs did this on a regular basis. The difference was excellent air seach radar that allowed them to dive many times before ever being seen by Japanese aircraft. In areas with heavy air patrol, Allied sub doctrine was to lay doggo under the waves during the day and then surface to feed on Japanese merchants in the night hours.

True, the Japanese airborne ASW was nothing compared to a multi service ASW system the player can set up.

I am saying that the Japanese had the potential to do the same, not that they actually did.
Read post #15 for details. [;)]

Something they could do very well after they got 21 CM radar. Using radar, Allied subs were stalking the virtually blind Japanese merchants on the surface long after it became very dangerous for Axis subs to do so.
Sadly this is not reflected in the game at all and Japanese air search works just as well as the Allied and Allied subs always attack submerged and then get hammered by ASW forces that in real life had a very difficult finding and attacking them....

That probably has as much to do with the Japanese convoy system as with Allied radar.
The Japanese were neglecting ASW for reasons I tried to explain in post #15.

Also in my PBEM I have yet to see an US sub getting sunk by IJN ASW, and I do operate in hostile waters.

In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.

I guess just about any Japanese PBEM player will tell you otherwise.
Also the impact of sub warfare is much broader than a torpedo on course to a target. Though I agree thats the most satisfying. At least after 42...

People often simply play subs the wrong way. And then are surprized by the losses when they designate a PZ in ASW grounds and then forget about the boat for 6 months.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

People often simply play subs the wrong way. And then are surprized by the losses when they designate a PZ in ASW grounds and then forget about the boat for 6 months.

if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign I´m going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesn´t matter "how" you play your subs then as it´s going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]

IMO ASW and the sub war in general is a vast improvement over WITP as it works very well from 41 until 44. From early 44 on it´s pretty much as borked as it was in WITP (with USN subs being the hunted - except in the all time favourite Speedy vs Fabertong PBEM) and if there isn´t a completely incompetent IJ player that fails to use his super E at all the subwar is going to be on a halt, which happens in the year the USN subs sank the most merchants in the war. The solution to all this seems to be playing a mod like DaBabes. It´s not much different use, it´s more like a big difference in performance of what the players use.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

In AE Allied subs are a "fun" novelty that will sink a few ships but have little or no impact on the game. A serious flaw if you ask me.

My own experience playing as Japan is that Allied subs are a catastrophic menace, not a fun novelty. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; the game has enough variation that different players can see a wide range of results. It is possible, for instance, that my ASW efforts, while vigorous, are less than effective.

The following screenshot is from my current game with Charbroiled, now in early July '43. The list only includes sinkings from Mk. 14 torpedoes. If it included the Mk. 10s and the British and Dutch torpedoes it would be much, much longer.

ORIGINAL: FatR

One thing people often forget is that Allied sub successes in 1944 happened after Japanese were already on the rout and lacking strength in every area. USN subs helped to mop things up faster, sure, but they did not won the war by themselves... and you should not expect them to do so in the game.

US subs didn't win the Pacific War by themselves but they did sink more Jap shipping than everything else combined. That's not mopping up.

During the Second World War, submarines comprised less than 2 percent of the U.S. Navy, but sank over 30 percent of Japan's navy, including eight aircraft carriers. More important, American submarines contributed to the virtual strangling of the Japanese economy by sinking almost five million tons of shipping—over 60 percent of the Japanese merchant marine. Victory at sea did not come cheaply. The Submarine Force lost 52 boats and 3,506 men.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/subs/hist ... renuc/ww2/

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign I´m going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesn´t matter "how" you play your subs then as it´s going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]

The usual behaviour of a bad subfleet commander is patrolling on static and predictable areas, not
using deep ocean hexes, stubbornly operating under enemy air cover, not adapting to change of enemy ASW tactics,
using subs against high value/best protected targets exclusively.
I have seen lots of those. Including your AAR. [;)]

Its ok if you think that it doesn´t matter how you play your subs, I wont waste energy to start
a debate on that one.

I already mentioned that E class may be stronger than they should be, but I doubt
they are uber as you seem to think. Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ´44.

ORIGINAL: mjk428

US subs didn't win the Pacific War by themselves but they did sink more Jap shipping than everything else combined. That's not mopping up.

That is. Most of their victories, including the overwhelming majority of large warships sinkings, fall into period when the speed of Allied advance was already mostly determined by Allied logistics. Had Allies stopped sub operations entirely from 1/1944, the end outcome would have been exactly the same, with, at most, 1-2 months of delay compared to the historical schedule, for later operations. So, if the Allied players sits and twiddles his thumbs, expecting the subs to win the war for him, instead of serving as a force multiplier, he should not use history as the ground for complaints, when this plan fails. If subs are correctly used, in conjunction with pressure on other fronts, though, they can inflict severe damage.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

if you ever get a PBEM into early mid 44 and play a stock campaign I´m going to remind you about that when you face the super E and then you will find out it has been a rather unqualified statement as it pretty much doesn´t matter "how" you play your subs then as it´s going to be best not to play them at all at that point.[:)]

The usual behaviour of a bad subfleet commander is patrolling on static and predictable areas, not
using deep ocean hexes, stubbornly operating under enemy air cover, not adapting to change of enemy ASW tactics,
using subs against high value/best protected targets exclusively.
I have seen lots of those. Including your AAR. [;)]

Its ok if you think that it doesn´t matter how you play your subs, I wont waste energy to start
a debate on that one.

I already mentioned that E class may be stronger than they should be, but I doubt
they are uber as you seem to think. Feel free to remind me in the unlikely case I start whining
about dephcharges in ´44.

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn´t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that´s what we´ve all got an ego for. It´s not about high value targets, it´s about super E that are moving around in ASW TF of four ships that only got to end up in the same hex as a sub and you´ve got a fair chance to have it either heavily damaged or sunk. Done a test and sent the result to kereguelen as we had some discussion about it back then and the results were like I would have try to simulate the convoy battles in the Atlantic, with the USN being the Kriegsmarine.

It´s great to know that you are the only one to know how to handle things to create different result than (mostly) everyone else, yet I fail to see the prove for it, especially when you haven´t even reached the dates for it. I grant you to judge about airwar in 42, about ASW in 42, further up is becoming problematic as you say you haven´t even reached these dates. As long as you haven´t got a PBEM (I really don´t care much about an AI game other than for testing purpose) in late war you´ve pretty much not experienced a lot of funny things, being it mega strikes followed by the usual halve dozen + piece meal waves, super E, three dozen error messages each turn due to things screwing up or anything else more than just me are seeing in the two turns daily. The every turn happening screw ups (which I tend to see in your partially posted combat reports too) are going x³ later on when you suddenly start having a thousand aircraft on each front instead of figthing with three units on each side.

As I´m a nogo anyway, just take what JWE and DonBowen are doing, they obviously DID something in terms of subwar and the super escorts. Go ahead and tell them stock is right and DaBabes is wrong, keep it a secret that you haven´t experienced the timeframe though.[;)] Many things they have incorporated in their mod(s) are obviously coming closer to reality than what vanilla gives you (and I´m definately not claiming all and everything is broken, even though that´s what I´m accused for).

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: mjk428

US subs didn't win the Pacific War by themselves but they did sink more Jap shipping than everything else combined. That's not mopping up.

That is. Most of their victories, including the overwhelming majority of large warships sinkings, fall into period when the speed of Allied advance was already mostly determined by Allied logistics. Had Allies stopped sub operations entirely from 1/1944, the end outcome would have been exactly the same, with, at most, 1-2 months of delay compared to the historical schedule, for later operations. So, if the Allied players sits and twiddles his thumbs, expecting the subs to win the war for him, instead of serving as a force multiplier, he should not use history as the ground for complaints, when this plan fails. If subs are correctly used, in conjunction with pressure on other fronts, though, they can inflict severe damage.

+1, exactly my line of thinking.

ORIGINAL: FatR

Such are the perils of losing the war badly. One thing people often forget is that Allied sub successes in 1944 happened after Japanese were already on the rout and lacking strength in every area. USN subs helped to mop things up faster, sure, but they did not won the war by themselves... and you should not expect them to do so in the game.

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

From Admiral King's final report to the Secretary of the Navy http://www.valoratsea.com/King.htm:

"Sinking of enemy merchant ships rose from 134 ships totaling 580,390 tons in 1942 to 284 ships totaling 1,341,968 tons in 1943. Then in 1944, when submarine coordinated attack groups reached the peak of their effectiveness, the merchant fleet of Japan suffered its worst and most crippling blow-492 ships of 2,387,780 tons were sunk or destroyed in submarine torpedo and gun attacks. The figures given above, which are based on evaluated estimates, include only ships of 1000 tons and larger. It should be borne in mind that our submarines sank or destroyed, chiefly by gunfire, large numbers of smaller vessels, particularly during the latter part of the war, when few large enemy ships still remained afloat. In 1945, because of the tremendous attrition on Japanese shipping by our earlier submarine operations and the destructive sweeps by our fleets and carrier air forces, enemy merchantmen sunk by submarines dropped to 132 ships totaling 469,872 tons. The advance of our forces had further driven Japanese ships back to the coast lines and shallow waters of Japan and the Asiatic mainland. Our submarines followed the Page 202 enemy shipping into these dangerous waters and made many skillful and daring attacks, such as the one in April when TIRANTE entered a patrolled anchorage in Quelpart Island to blow up a 10,000 ton tanker and two 1,500 ton escort vessels, which were peacefully lying at anchor. Further south, persistent submarine patrolling plus air sweeps had, by the end of March, stopped almost all enemy traffic along the sea lanes of the East Indies and the coast of Indo-China. For a time, Japanese shipping continued to ply in the East China and Yellow Seas, but the invasion of Okinawa in April soon made the East China Sea untenable to the Japanese. Causing heavy damage, our submarines were very active during April and May in the Yellow Sea and along the east and south coasts of the main Japanese islands. In June the landlocked Sea of Japan was penetrated in force. The submarines had excellent hunting, and in a series of coordinated attacks did tremendous damage to the remnants of the Japanese merchant fleet. One of the intruders, BARB even landed a party on the coast of Honshu, and successfully blew up a bridge and the speeding train that was crossing it. By the end of the war, the Japanese merchant fleet was virtually nonexistent.

ATTACKS ON NAVAL VESSELS
While United States submarines were effectively eliminating the Japanese merchant fleet, they were also carrying out damaging attacks on Japanese naval units. During the course of the war, the following principal Japanese combatant types were sent to the bottom as a result of these attacks: Battleship 1 Carriers 4 Escort Carriers 4 Heavy Cruisers 3 Light Cruisers 9 Destroyers 43 Submarines 23 Minor combatant vessels and naval auxiliaries (including 60 escort vessels) 189 Details of these sinkings will be found in Appendix A. While the loss of the heavier naval units was critical to the Japanese, especially as the strength of our surface fleet increased, the surprisingly high losses of enemy destroyers and escort vessels to submarine attack are particularly noteworthy. Our submarines, refusing to accept the role of the hunted, even after their presence was known, frequently attacked their archenemies under circumstances of such great risk that the failure of their attack on the enemy antisubmarine vessel placed the submarine in extreme danger of loss. So successful, however, were these attacks that the Japanese developed a dangerous deficiency of destroyer screening units in their naval task forces, and their merchant shipping was often inadequately escorted. "

How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons. Reading this forum, especially some of the non-US posters' missives, one would think that the USN submarine war was an afterthought. The figures do not bear that out.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Planes rarely hit subs...

You have obviously never played Silent Hunter II/III... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

Do you really believe, that outcome in Leyte Gulf was ever actually in doubt, or that there possibly was a probability of achieving any for significant results for Japanese, or you just in need of some loud words?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

Actually yes, inability to take any meaningful defensive action when the enemy assaults your line means that you are routed. Demolition of Truk only highlighted the inability of IJN to resist Allied advance. And even if before Marianas Japanese actually had any options, save for picking the place where they would like IJN to be destroyed for little to no effect, which is arguable, past Marianas they certainly hadn't. Had all USN submarines disappeared from the world, Japanese could have put somewhat stiffer resistance on the ground and stage more air attacks on Philippines and later, accounting for the delay I've mentioned above, but still without any hope of changing the overall outcome.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

As subs, however, didn't accomplish that (actual results were 4870k tons out of 8924k tons of sunk or severely damaged merchant tonnage), who cares.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

I had 4 carriers hit by sub attacks in 1942 alone, and hit, IIRC, 2, when playing Allies (Japanese operated their carriers much less intensely in that game). This is ahistoric, so the game is clearly broken!!!

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons.

6.5 millions. Lossing, IIRC, about 1.5 millions of that to subs was quite significant, of course, considering that Japan started with a deficit of shipping... but less significant that loss of ability ot use foreign shipping due to commencing of hostilities, actually. But still, RL was not the scenario where Allies either played Sir Robin or failed badly in 1942, so it should only be compared to games where Japanese are pressured early and heavily, like, Cuttlefish's game from which he posted screenshots above.

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn´t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that´s what we´ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Really? So the greatest naval battle in world history, in October 1944, was after the IJN had routed?

Do you really believe, that outcome in Leyte Gulf was ever actually in doubt, or that there possibly was a probability of achieving any for significant results for Japanese, or you just in need of some loud words?

Hey, buddy, I wasn't the person who used "rout." Maybe we have a differnet definition of the word. I would agree, for example, that the performance of the Red Army in the first months of Barbarossa was a rout. Historic, epic even.

Leyte Gulf woud have been an American disaster if the Japanese main force had kept coming and attacked the landing beaches. The IJN would have ultimately lost, yes, but they would have set back the invasion of the PI 6-9 months or more, and scored a propaganda victory on a tiring US public of immense value.

Given what they had to work with in October 1944, yeah, I think that would have been significant.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The Mid-Pac campaign didn't begin until November 1943. The Japanese were not "routed" when the Marines hit Tarawa.

Actually yes, inability to take any meaningful defensive action when the enemy assaults your line means that you are routed.

Tell that to the men who died on Iwo Jima. FWIW, I don't agree with your definition. If that is used, Japan was routed on December 8, 1941.

Demolition of Truk only highlighted the inability of IJN to resist Allied advance.

Again, not the defiinition of the word.

rout1    /raʊt/ Show Spelled
[rout] Show IPA

–noun
1. a defeat attended with disorderly flight; dispersal of a defeated force in complete disorder: to put an army to rout; to put reason to rout.

And even if before Marianas Japanese actually had any options, save for picking the place where they would like IJN to be destroyed for little to no effect, which is arguable, past Marianas they certainly hadn't. Had all USN submarines disappeared from the world, Japanese could have put somewhat stiffer resistance on the ground and stage more air attacks on Philippines and later, accounting for the delay I've mentioned above, but still without any hope of changing the overall outcome.

Hmm, WHY do you figure they were having such a hard time resisting? Why couldn't they build ships, or put fuel in the ones they had? Why couldn't they move men and supplies around safely deep inside their defense perimeter? Perhaps the submarine campaign of 1942-43 had decimated their merchant marine?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
As to the sub war, sinking 4 of every 5 merchant tons doesn't constitue for me "mopping up."

As subs, however, didn't accomplish that (actual results were 4870k tons out of 8924k tons of sunk or severely damaged merchant tonnage), who cares.

Apparently you, since here you contrtadict what you say below. I'm interested where you get the figure of 8.9 million tons of merchant shipping sunk as well.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
How many AE players see 8 carriers sunk by submarines? Oh, the JFB howling!!!

I had 4 carriers hit by sub attacks in 1942 alone, and hit, IIRC, 2, when playing Allies (Japanese operated their carriers much less intensely in that game). This is ahistoric, so the game is clearly broken!!!

I repeat, however, if subs were so worthless, how did they sink so many major combatants? You know, for guys hanging out, "mopping up"? Probably should have been embarrased to take their paychecks.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Despite torpedo trouble and a shortage of modern fleet boats, the totals for 1942-43 are extremely significant when measured against a pre-war Japanese merchant inventory of about 5 million tons.

6.5 millions.

Again, cite?

Lossing, IIRC, about 1.5 millions of that to subs was quite significant,

Especially since the figures in Adm. King's official report to SecNav are WAAAAY above that, but go on. Use JANAC if you like; you'd still be wrong.

of course, considering that Japan started with a deficit of shipping... but less significant that loss of ability ot use foreign shipping due to commencing of hostilities, actually. But still, RL was not the scenario where Allies either played Sir Robin or failed badly in 1942, so it should only be compared to games where Japanese are pressured early and heavily, like, Cuttlefish's game from which he posted screenshots above.

I'm not commenting on games of AE. I'm commenting on the incorrectness of your statements against RL events and outcomes.

That is. Most of their victories, including the overwhelming majority of large warships sinkings, fall into period when the speed of Allied advance was already mostly determined by Allied logistics. Had Allies stopped sub operations entirely from 1/1944, the end outcome would have been exactly the same, with, at most, 1-2 months of delay compared to the historical schedule, for later operations. So, if the Allied players sits and twiddles his thumbs, expecting the subs to win the war for him, instead of serving as a force multiplier, he should not use history as the ground for complaints, when this plan fails. If subs are correctly used, in conjunction with pressure on other fronts, though, they can inflict severe damage.

What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

Firstly, if you have FOG OF WAR on, you may actually have sunk more than 3 subs, as it's possible others haven't yet shown up on your SUNK SHIPS report.

Secondly, how many US subs do you think you should be sinking? IRL, the US sub fleet virtually throttled the Japanese supply lines. From what I've read in these forums, that NEVER happens in this game. Japanese ASW seems to be greatly overrated in AE, so you should probably be happy with the results you ARE getting.

(JFBs make me nuts!)

Look on the bright side. Come 1944 when the Japanese E class ASW ships kick in you will have the weapon all desire.

ORIGINAL: spence
What is suggested by this post is that the USN defeated the IJN in 1942 without that much help from USN submarines.
The game seems to contradict that version of history. Perhaps then it is broken.

Or perhaps you think so because your skills are not on par with either historical USN commanders or numerous players who did just that, as evidenced by about half of existing AARs.

ORIGINAL: offenseman

ORIGINAL: castor troy

you should not argue about things you have not experienced or tested yourselve and of course you wouldn´t start whining in 44, not even if you would lose all the USN subs to E, that´s what we´ve all got an ego for.

I will not get in the middle of this debate but I am going to stick up for LoBaron. As his (along with Rob) PBEM opponent, I must say that Lenny NEVER whines regardless how bad his luck or losses. He takes it in stride and moves on with life. We are currently in late 10/42 and all of us plan on getting to 1944 and beyond. The game started as a 2v2 and I lost my partner several months ago. Even with that mess to contend with and a lot of things we would have liked to change because of those circumstances, we all agreed to continue AND to have a rematch when this game is done. Unless RL gets in the way in a serious manner, Lenny will get a chance to experience the Super E and I suspect he will find ways to minimize his losses. CT, his experience in the GC is not as great as many here BUT his gaming skills are exceptional. Top shelf stuff.

It does not have to do anything with good or bad skill, judging about something you haven´t even experienced yet is like saying "hey I´m a good car driver, I´m also very good in a F1 race car, even though I have yet to come even close to one". He will not find a way to minimize his losses, other than to stay away of them as this is no flight sim where you are actually FLYING but you are only the one who tells the subs to go to hex x, patrol, etc and you can not influence the action between subs and E at all. Heck, why am I even debating, just the same as the one who was commenting about WITP for years while not even owing the game. Get there, show us your results, debate. Or, like I´ve said, tell the DaBabes guys (who all were part of the original dev team) their changes weren´t a good idea because stock is spot on. As he takes everything else as gospel that comes from that direction (or only in terms of the no.1 air routines?) I wonder why he doesn´t agree here. Nik´s last comment on that matter for example was that the performance of these vessels was already known from WITP. Ah, just get there first...

subwar works very well until the Japanese get a ship classes that perform as good as modern British or US destroyers, while IJN DDs just stay what they ever were. So you just have to wonder why these E should be oh so great. Oh, yes, because the IJ player got so much skill and the Allied player sucks. Would be like saying his Oscars wreck havoc with my P-47 because my opponent rocks and I´m a rookie. You won´t get your Oscars to rock...