Seriously Now.......I mean Really....Really

[crsutton]

Well, that would be the case for American escorts after 42 anyways where they were pretty adept at spotting subs before an attack but that was never really the case with Japanese escorts who due to very poor equipment often failed to detect Allied subs before an attack and many times never found it after either. Japanese radar was so feeble that the most effective American tactic was to attack on the surface at night while using their superior radar. A tactic that had long become obsolete in the Atlantic for the opposite reason.

I don't really want to get into a whine about American subs. I have done it enough already.[;)] It is just than in an email game a decent Japanese player can pretty much totally neutralize the Allied sub effort for whatever reasons. I firmly believe that both players should be allowed to play better than their historical counterparts, so convoys and better air coverage should be an option. But Japan just did not have the technology or the potential to create the technology to counter the Allied sub effort to a great degree. And when the results are completely off the map then it is a problem. Any simulation of the war in the Pacific where the Japanese player is not "sweating" out Allied subs is a miss in my book.

But we have to accept that the game has pretty much gone under the knife as much as it is going to and it is pretty damn fine even with it's warts. We AFBs just have to find another way to bring the evil empire to it's knees.

[Titanwarrior89]

Yep, I would have to agree and your correct about WitpAe being the best computer game on the subject with all its warts. Thats one reason why I am done whining. I am going to have a couple cups of coffee and sink some of Dogs Carriers later.....well maybe not......[:D] but I'll try.

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, that would be the case for American escorts after 42 anyways where they were pretty adept at spotting subs before an attack but that was never really the case with Japanese escorts who due to very poor equipment often failed to detect Allied subs before an attack and many times never found it after either. Japanese radar was so feeble that the most effective American tactic was to attack on the surface at night while using their superior radar. A tactic that had long become obsolete in the Atlantic for the opposite reason.

I don't really want to get into a whine about American subs. I have done it enough already.[;)] It is just than in an email game a decent Japanese player can pretty much totally neutralize the Allied sub effort for whatever reasons. I firmly believe that both players should be allowed to play better than their historical counterparts, so convoys and better air coverage should be an option. But Japan just did not have the technology or the potential to create the technology to counter the Allied sub effort to a great degree. And when the results are completely off the map then it is a problem. Any simulation of the war in the Pacific where the Japanese player is not "sweating" out Allied subs is a miss in my book.

But we have to accept that the game has pretty much gone under the knife as much as it is going to and it is pretty damn fine even with it's warts. We AFBs just have to find another way to bring the evil empire to it's knees.

[Don Bowen]

There are a number of issues in this thread, and perhaps a little confusion about how some things work.

A sub torpedo attack involves:[ol]
[*] Can the sub fire a torpedo (or more than one)?

• Is the target worth a torpedo (with fog of war)?
• Can the sub get into firing position?
  • Relative speed of sub and target TF
  • Detection level of sub and TF
  • Number and skill of escorts
  • Skill and aggression of sub commander

[*] Does the torpedo hit the target?

• Accuracy of torpedo (from device table)
• Speed and maneuverablilty of target

[*] Does it explode?

• Dud rate of torpedo (from device table)
• Nothing else

[/ol]

To all of these, add a little luck. Or rather, random chance. For just about everything in AE, there is a random chance. A torpedo with an 80% dud rate would have an 80% chance of failure for each hit. No long term averaging or any such thing. Just a random 80%. That could mean 10 explosions in a row or 500 duds in a row. It's just random.

[Nikademus]

Its a conspiracy. [;)]

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
BTW, ask Bill and Hartwig how our torpedoes work against CVs. I don't seem to notice a difference. It may seem like it at times, but it seems pretty random on the success/dud rate to me against any target.

Just fine. For the Allied, that is.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
BTW, ask Bill and Hartwig how our torpedoes work against CVs. I don't seem to notice a difference. It may seem like it at times, but it seems pretty random on the success/dud rate to me against any target.

Just fine. For the Allied, that is.

[:'(]