Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Unfortunately it has been stated officially that ASW will not be changed as the developers and programmers are happy with it. "It is working as designed."[:(]

So the programers aren't interested in reality? Too bad. That put's us back into the
realms of "house rules". Alswys a problem. I wonder what happened to 2by3's dedication to supporting it's games. Guess I won't be buying any more of their games..

Hi, Several points of contention. The BB TF was not moving at 30 kts.
The submarines were known to be in the hex before the BB TF arrived there.
Present in the hex were 2 ASW TF that had been in the hex on the prior turn.
The submarine was spoted by aircraft.
This condition had existed for several turns.


OK it was the TF with the high rated leader and high experiance DD that scored the hits.

The game allows the submarine to score hits on these "high speed" ships more often then the escort hit the submarine.

The sub was killed not because it encountered a surface combat TF at high speed but because it remained for several days in the same location.
I don't see surface combat TF sink submarines unless the sub is a prior contact and it makes the first attack.

Unspotted subs that attack TF usally get away from that first encounter.
Enemy TF drive over my subs all the time with no ASW action at all other then my sub going deep. I get a contact report. If I hang around and wait for the ASW TF that is certain to come from a nearby port my sub gets attacked. (against early war ASW ships it is only DD that really scare me. The MSW/PC are more often at risk from the sub)

Issues - not people !

I note that when it comes to the ASW game (which has been configured to support the IJN -and USN both employing tactics more suited for the USN in 1944 ... ) the forum seems to favor allowing players freedom to do what they want. But when we discussed carrier doctrine and the game trying to bake in what some think are limitations on the USN side ... the same forum hollers "doctrine" ...so I guess that sounds like "my cake and eat it too" ... I'm all in favor of freedom ... and argued for it in the CV Strike thread ... but I quote from Chp 12 Evans(ed.) The Japanese Navy in WWII [NIP] "post war wisdom tells us Japan should have reformed and strenghtened her ASW setup during these ... quiet months. ... but this period of quiet ultimately worked against Japan ... the Americans built more subs,trained more crews ... nothing drastic was done [by Japan] to remedy ASW unpreparedness" ... soooo if we assume that Cpt Walker was re-incarnated as a Japanese Navy Man prior to the War and build up Japanese ASW readiness, then the game maybe considered to be much more accurate ... but ... just perhaps this assumption should be an option not baked in ... freedom !!!

Freedom from assumption that USN CV doctrine only allowed single CV TF...

Freedom from asusmption that IJN Walker was in charge of developing IJN ASW program pre-war !

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Freedom from assumption that USN CV doctrine only allowed single CV TF...

Allies can use multiple CV TF's right at the start of the game. I think the point is about capability of successfully coordinating large strikes. If, on the other hand the point is actually about obeying a doctrine that CV strikes be small, then I agree with you - remove the doctrinal restriction.

Regarding the IJN ASW, what I'm interested in is what were the accurate capabilities? You seem to be talking about the pre-war IJN doctrine governing what capabilities were developed. That's kind of akin to the issue of developing aircraft that were not available in the war, or developing them earlier than they were available. I realize that the Japanese player is allowed to make some production and R&D changes, but that's the only place in the game where that option is available.

It would be interesting to have vastly expanded options regarding development of technologies & techniques. That would be a radically different game than now.

The current ASW model (both sides) seems to do a pretty good job.

Getting back to the CV issue, my best understanding is that the strike coordination rules model capabilities as they existed at the beginning of the war and as they evolved, especially for the USN. If I'm wrong and it is doctrine that's being modeled, then certainly it should be changed.

My basic principle is model the capabilites accurately, let the players make the decisions. (Side note: I do not mean to have every low level command or TF or ship micromanged.)

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



So the programers aren't interested in reality? Too bad. That put's us back into the
realms of "house rules". Alswys a problem. I wonder what happened to 2by3's dedication to supporting it's games. Guess I won't be buying any more of their games..

The problem is always the same. Every gamer wants a totally historical game. But if i want history I will buy a book or a movie, so in the game their will always be a compromise between history and game balance, and I say 2by3 did a good job (ok, I will leave the AI out)

So take the challenge or leave it, personally I have no problems fighting the IJN with subs (ok , a little help from the rest of the Navy does add some weight )

It is kinda funny that a historical on/off toggle is put in and people switch off the historical on/off toggle then complain about the fact that don't get historical results.

I guess we should just reduce everything to rock-paper-scissors and let people see if they can figure out a way of making that not work ... can see Ron's post now ... Mogami's paper is too tough for my kiddie scissors [:D]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It is kinda funny that a historical on/off toggle is put in and people switch off the historical on/off toggle then complain about the fact that don't get historical results.

I guess we should just reduce everything to rock-paper-scissors and let people see if they can figure out a way of making that not work ... can see Ron's post now ... Mogami's paper is too tough for my kiddie scissors [:D]

If I wanted to play Risk, that's what I would be doing.

I really like this game. I am guessing that lots of other posters here do too, otherwise they wouldn't get so passionate about their point of view...[:)]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It is kinda funny that a historical on/off toggle is put in and people switch off the historical on/off toggle then complain about the fact that don't get historical results.

I guess we should just reduce everything to rock-paper-scissors and let people see if they can figure out a way of making that not work ... can see Ron's post now ... Mogami's paper is too tough for my kiddie scissors [:D]

As a moderator I'm surprised you feel the need to keep stirring the pot.

The claim by the defenders of the CV Strike coordination rule is based on [ lack of ] doctrine ( see the several LST and Nikademus posts in the CV strike thread - the jist being lack of doctrine led to poor strike coordination - note however that the numbers from the historical battles don't justify the claim of poor strike coordination - as shown in the thread -posts by spence and jwilkerson ).

Regarding IJN ASW adequacy - Don't listen to me, read the source I quote. Atsuhi Oi was (amongst other jobs during the war) operations officer of Grand Escort Command ( the IJN HQ formed on 15 Nov 43 to manage the IJN ASW effort to protect convoys ). His repeated characterization of the totally inadequate state of IJN ASW before and during the war are a testimony that speak for themselves. And again, his Chapter 12 appears in "The Japanese Navy In World WarII"[NIP] Evans[ed.].

I quote another fragment.

"On 10 Apr 42 two escort groups were activated. The First Escort Group consisted of 10 old destroyers, 2 torpedo boats, and 5 converted gunboats to escort merchant vessels sailing ... sailing between Singapore and Japanese homeland. The Second Escort Group consisted of 4 old destroyers, 2 torpedo boats and 1 converted gunboat to take care of ... lines between Yokosuka and Truk. One glance indicates these forces were far from adequate."

His quote not mine [ and he was there ].

I have consistently argued for historical accuracy and freedom from hard coded doctrine. I submit that others are flip/flopping their arguments. Those who support both CV Strikes limits ( hard coded ) and allowance for IJN using Allied ASW doctrine and tactics from 1944 in 1941. I support neither being hard coded [ but have no problem with either being options ]. Apparently others support both ( being hard coded ).

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
As a moderator I'm surprised you feel the need to keep stirring the pot.

No,no. I enjoy the show. Show must go on, even if Pasternaski is lost for public, Ron is preserving the art.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It is kinda funny that a historical on/off toggle is put in and people switch off the historical on/off toggle then complain about the fact that don't get historical results.

I guess we should just reduce everything to rock-paper-scissors and let people see if they can figure out a way of making that not work ... can see Ron's post now ... Mogami's paper is too tough for my kiddie scissors [:D]

F--k you can be infuriating.[:D] If you guys had any clue what historical was, maybe we would use it! That Allied Sub Doctrine was the worst pile of unresearched BS I've seen in a long time. Not only does it completely miss the mark conceptually, you guys went ahead and implemented it in the worst possible way. Did anyone even test it out? I remember it being a late add on while testing out actual patch issues. If I had had more than I day with this I would have lit up the dev forum and it may have been caught.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I have consistently argued for historical accuracy and freedom from hard coded doctrine. I submit that others are flip/flopping their arguments. Those who support both CV Strikes limits ( hard coded ) and allowance for IJN using Allied ASW doctrine and tactics from 1944 in 1941. I support neither being hard coded [ but have no problem with either being options ]. Apparently others support both ( being hard coded ).

Just don't allow players the ability to utilize performance abilities which did not exist. I'm all for letting players change tactics and doctrine, after all,as a strategic level game, we should have been able to access HQs etc to set target priority, various strategic doctrines, etc. (This is one area they completely missed the ChinaClipper on.)

But don't give the players wonder weapons to use in the employment/development of alternative doctrines. What historical leader would not have jumped at the chance of using ships and TFs which defy physical laws of time and space; endless numbers of fishing wharves which house unlimited amounts of rare 18.1" ammo; company size units capable of stopping any number of enemy divisions from moving, retreating or maintaining supply; ports which can service unlimited numbers of ships every day; aircraft which never need to actually repair more than a day or so and can do more damage in one mission vs troops than thousands of pieces of artillery firing incessantly...the list is endless.

Is this worth arguing over? No because any sane individual would accept that this is complete BS, is gamey as hell, and if allowed in the game it shouldn't be and should not be exploited.[:-]

Allied sub doctrin is seriously...odd. In my game against Dave we have reached March 26th 1942, and I think I have made a grand total of 2 submarine attacks. Almost every turn I see taskforces moving through my sub locations...it is *seriously* frustrating.

Do you play with the combat animations "on"?

Are your subs making attacks, but getting duds?

ORIGINAL: mlees

Do you play with the combat animations "on"?

Are your subs making attacks, but getting duds?

Yes of cource I have the combat animations on. No the subs are not making attacks at all.

Just getting a picture of your situation. I do not play with the animations. I do have a combat report popup after each fight, and I skim through that. This is sufficient vs the AI.

I like to play with the Allied sub doctrine off, and I did not realise how neutered the subs are with it on, if your case is the usual pattern. I feel your pain.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: mlees

Do you play with the combat animations "on"?

Are your subs making attacks, but getting duds?

Yes of cource I have the combat animations on. No the subs are not making attacks at all.

Who are ya playing? 2ACR? If so, the bugger let you walk into a hell on earth.[;)] We played our last game with it and by July 42 I think I had maybe 8 attacks in total as Allies.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Who are ya playing? 2ACR? If so, the bugger let you walk into a hell on earth.[;)] We played our last game with it and by July 42 I think I had maybe 8 attacks in total as Allies.

Yeah. We've agreed to restart when 1.5 and the new mod is out though, and in the new game we will have allied sub doctrin OFF, I can tell you that [8D]