Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

<snip>

No takers...[8|]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

I know it was discussed many times before but I want to kick this dead horse once more…

Is there any chance of improving/correcting IJN sub doctrine in the next patch? I suppose there are only few people around here who play with IJN sub doctrine ON, since this makes Japanese submarines virtually useless. But in reality they were not totally useless, especially early in the war.

In game subs under doctrine attack only warships and ignore merchants and auxiliary vessels, that’s okay, the problem is that they attack only those warships that are in the combat TFs. Any warships, including CVE/L, CA, CL that are in the non-combat TFs, such as transport TFs or amphibious forces – are being ignored. It looks like this modifier checks what type of a TF it is. If it is non-combat it doesn’t let to initiate sub combat, even if there are plenty of warships in this TF. Of course I can be wrong here but this is what I see in the game, my subs completely ignore allied transport TFs with 2-3 escort carriers and dozen of cruisers that escort 1 or 2 cargos with troops. Besides that, IJN high command realized later in war that Combat Regulations issued in 1934 were not suitable in 1945 and doctrine was changed, subs had another priorities during the final stages of the war, they failed to achive anything but this time not because of a faulty doctrine. Game doesn’t simulate this in dynamic. I think the following changes should be introduced – 1) Sub doctrine modifier should check for types of the ships in TF and do not check what mission this TF has 2) Player should be able to switch doctrine on/off during the gameplay, it would be nice to be able to switch doctrine on in S and SW zones and have it off in Indian ocean. Is it possible? I really want to play with historical doctrine on but there is no such option actually, what we have simply takes IJN subs out of the game.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I'd say that you'r enot using all your assets there. If you've had Jap subs regularly put a couple of torps into your important ships, then you need to go on the offensive agaisnt those subs. Tey setting more aircraft in the Hawaiian islands onto ASW patrol, complemented with a couple of ASW TFs consisting 4-6 DDs. This should help chase away those pesky Jap subs.

ORIGINAL: spence

Just an update for anyone interested.

PBEM as ALLIES - 1/08/42 - USN SUB DOCTRINE ON

A month of "unrestricted submarine warfare" by COMSUBPAC has not seen a single torpedo launch, let alone hit, by any USN submarine.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

<snip>

No takers...[8|]

Did you expect any ? [>:] We've been over this ground so many times - including I think asking for exactly this before - that it should be obvious this is a dead herring ... I've given up on having subs fixed ... when 1.5 first came out I thought it was better .. and it is ... but maybe 10% better, though the air asw model got tweaked in the wrong direction by an even greater margin .. so net I'd say we are worse off than before ... I still lose about 2 subs a week as IJN using them "historically" even with some limited a-historical tactics ( moving them every turn ) as an attempt to try to "help" the system not sink my subs too fast ( and I got yelled at by you for doing even that much !!! ).

On the other hand Allied subs seem to be doing better in my newest game - they can be used more aggressively ( i.e. more historically ) now and don't suffer the same loss rate as before ( my Allied opponent has lost about 1 sub per month and he is using them very aggressively ( i.e. historically ). Maybe I'm just a lousey ASW commander ! But I do have lots of ASW task groups and I escort most convoy's and I have bombers flying naval search at low altitides, normal range over the areas where I'm sailing ... but this particular game is CHS not stock and you may have made some additional improvements in CHS for Allied subs !? )