Matrix Games Forums

I usually lose 1 Glen or so every few months as an op loss. I've noticed that they don't get pulled out of my pool when a new sub is built. Anyone know if this is a glitch?

New Glen-carrying subs come from the factory with a Glen. They don't check ze pool first...

Geez, I have 33 Glens in my pool. That's enough for the rest of the war.[X(]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In my mod, I've gone with rule#3: REMOVE THE GLEN COMPLETELY FROM THE GAME.

(might be a bit drastic for some, though...)[:D]

The Glen is definitely overrepresented in the stock game, as is. Those rules sound like viable options, although you'd probably go with the first one, as Feurer said...

Rule #3 works for me...

I agree. The US got 100 times more information, and much more usefull information at that, from code breaking than the Japanese EVER got from Glens or any other sub-launched A/C (Midway alone proves that). That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.

Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant
If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]

Umm, I think the man meant eliminate them in the interests of historicity.

Checkers ain't fair. One side always goes first...

I didn't think you had a problem with it, as I had heard no complaints until now........

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.

Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]

So I guess now is not the time to say I wany my Glens to be able to bomb the Panama Canal and San Francisco. [;)]


:::::fleeing from the building::::::

[:D]

I have a game as Allies that is up to March 15, 1942. I would like to show you the Glenn loses so far, but there have been none. That in spite of my opponent using them to scout out all the WC bases, the HI, all the ports in Australia, the ports in India, Ceylon, etc. etc. etc. Many Glenns have spotted TFs between the WC and HI so they are flying from mid ocean points. I would have to agree that the ops losses are a bit low. this is a Nik 5.02 game using ABs map( senario moded by AB for his map), started with 1.795 and upgraded to 1.8.

Of all the things to want to tweak, this is prety funny, Given all the Big things that coudl realy use some tweaking, Like PT boats, 4 engine Bombers, P-38's,The Ato A model, I mean god the list is huge and this is a subject for concern?

Thier are these TROM's one can go over that show a lot of interesting stuff about the Glen:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-9.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I10.htm

http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-11.htm

Thier is whole lota evidance of use and a bunch of sorties on the same patrole for these Subs.

I am mostly interested in what will make the game better for me to play. I think the game would play better with a less capable Glen. More cat and mouse and a better representation of relative intellegence information.

Doing this requires no code changes. I can limit my use of the Glen with out it. I think keeping my self to a couple of recon flights a turn and no naval search is a good limit.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

Greetings.... i do not think that Allied intel is joke. Apart from radio interceptions, Allies do get important info from:

1. "red cross" shown at base every time when Jap player move ac there (combined with air balance and you get more than clear picture what he move in the base and that is extremely important data!)... Allied player play after Japan player and... voilaaaa!

2. moving cursor to HI bases, you can see if Japs keep capitol ships in the ports. I'm not sure about the second, and would like if someone correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems that is possible. (i do not play Allies)

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


Japanese CVs spotted in Tokyo Harbour....my b-17 will pay a visit there[:D]

Nice intel - how did you managed to get this info - air recon, by subs or something else?

just move the cursor on Tokyo Base.
I think it's related with the high intelligence allied capacity....or maybe it's just because of the Catalinas...do not know.

so in general Allied intel is not that bad as players think, IMHO.

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

If you start eliminating things in the name of fairness, and carry it to its logical conclusion, you wind up with checkers.[;)]

Just for the record, I didn't eliminate the Glens and their carriers in the name of "fairness". I did it to simulate the Japanese going a similar way with the sub-carried floatplane that the USN did: tried it, couldn't get it to work well enough, dropped it again...

ORIGINAL: pauk

so in general Allied intel is not that bad as players think, IMHO.

The problem is that the intelligence picture might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. You can't trust it implicitly; it's a crap shoot, like it should be.

I did it to simulate the Japanese going a similar way with the sub-carried floatplane that the USN did: tried it, couldn't get it to work well enough, dropped it again...

Well it would seem that it worked well enough on at least one occasion. According to the I-10 TROM in Brady's link, the I-10's float plane was responsbile for reconnoitering Diego Suarez in Madagascar and relayed a sighting report indicating it had spotted the Ramillies. At least one midget sub launched from other subs in company with I-10 then severely damaged Ramillies and sank a tanker.

This is not to say Glenns aren't overly used in WitP. Simply to say that they could be and were effective on occasion. I don't think the Japanese player should be denied a historicaly weapon simply because its misused in the game. I do favor using weather to determine whether Glenns could launch or not.

According to the links Brady posted, only one Glenn was lost due to unknown causes. Granted its only 3 boats but still they were operational for a fairly long period of time and appear to have used them rather extensively.

Chez

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The problem is that the intelligence picture might be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off. You can't trust it implicitly; it's a crap shoot, like it should be.

Yes, but IIRC, hawker had CVs in Tokyo indeed... anyway, the player who base his strategy on intel exclusivly is doomed (as he should be).

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I didn't think you had a problem with it, as I had heard no complaints until now........

ORIGINAL: Sonny

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I have had tremendous success using Glens to "track and whack" Allied shipping of my PBEM opponent.

Far too much than historically POSSIBLE IMHO. Subs w/ Glens on station for months without an op loss is a bit much.

Yeah - so back off! Get historical.[:D]

Nah, Its part of the game. No problem.[8D]

The US got 100 times more information, and much more usefull information at that, from code breaking than the Japanese EVER got from Glens or any other sub-launched A/C (Midway alone proves that). That's not in the game at all (the radio intercepts provided are a joke). So why not eliminate the Glens in the name of fairness?

Different subject. Japan got data from radio intel too. They had a "black chamber" at Guemas Mexico that picked up signals from the Gulf as well as the West coast areas. Japan got better data from spies than we did - although we had some good Korean ones and fair Chinese ones. This is not in the game either. Japanese Prime Ministers got regular - and accurate - reports on the Manhattan Project throughout the war - and the Japanese bomb design is so similar to Little Boy it is hard to tell if it is just because that is fairly obvious - or a copy? [It was not too obvious: BOTH our first generation bomb designs FAILED. Little Boy was a cut down version of Tall Man - a gun all right - based on a 3 inch AA gun - but for Plutonium - which won't work almost every time. Germany also appears to have bet on a Plutonium Gun - with the same problem. Japan's bomb also uses a 3 inch AA gun. But there was this problem with fuel supply: there is not much uranium in areas available to Japan. And - as usual - Japan had mixed priorities - I am up to five different atomic programs by two different services - not a single unified effort. Not all were even trying for a bomb: IJN authorized its first program to produce an engine "for battleships and large land industrial facilities" while IJA authorized its first program to propel airplanes - something we spent about 5 billion dollars on (if you count both missiles and airplanes) after the war (and got none that worked - but a power source we use in space).]