HAVE TO ASK THIS QUESTION...

[testarossa]

I had the same problems whole 1942. Than Jan 1, 1943 the miracle happened and my subs started to perform adequately. So they kept gaining experience and in August 1943 I literally strangled Japan by sub blockade – nothing leaves or comes to Japan without getting a torpedo. This is against AI, so I understand that human player would have at least tried to hunt them down. AI does nothing.

Having sub doctrine on gives Jap player some breathing room in 1942, with unbeatable KB and worthless allied subs. One thing I don’t get – why Dutch and Brit subs are affected by this doctrine and why do they have duds? Duds plagued US Navy, but RN and Dutch Navy had reliable impact fuse torpedo. Is it intentional feature or just a bug?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

I had the same problems whole 1942. Than Jan 1, 1943 the miracle happened and my subs started to perform adequately. So they kept gaining experience and in August 1943 I literally strangled Japan by sub blockade – nothing leaves or comes to Japan without getting a torpedo. This is against AI, so I understand that human player would have at least tried to hunt them down. AI does nothing.

Having sub doctrine on gives Jap player some breathing room in 1942, with unbeatable KB and worthless allied subs. One thing I don’t get – why Dutch and Brit subs are affected by this doctrine and why do they have duds? Duds plagued US Navy, but RN and Dutch Navy had reliable impact fuse torpedo. Is it intentional feature or just a bug?

Every torpedo has its duds - including the Long Lance. I've had more than one ship hit by an IJN dud. The Dutch and Brits (and S- boat Mark 10) just had far fewer of them.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

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 ).

At midway a good part of the strike from the 2 USN carriers operating in the same TF missed finding the target (Dive bombers and fighters from Hornet). Yorktown (the 3rd carrier in a separate TF) was lagging behind to pick up search planes so her planes coming in late doesn't count. {source: The Two Ocean War, Samuel Eliot Morison, Pgs 155-156} So, I know there were some problems with coordinating large strikes. I do not know much about how long the issue lasted, 'doctrine only problem', 'capability only problem', 'mix of both', etc. so I've pretty much stayed out of the discussion you are referring to.

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 hear you, but I'm a little unsure which direction you are going with this, so let me ask a couple of questions.

IJN ASW is modeled as being much weaker than Allied ASW (there's a very significant modifier applied to the ASW value, it just doesn't show up on any displays). Is this okay, or do you think the adjustment is inadequate, or the ASW values of the ships wrong, or what?

Some players are choosing to use their IJN assets differently than the history you quoted above. That's fine with me, because they are taking the historically available assets with their historical capabilities and seeing if they can do better with them. Of course, that means they are pulling those assets from someplace, thereby shortchanging something else in their command. Are you okay with this?

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Every torpedo has its duds - including the Long Lance. I've had more than one ship hit by an IJN dud. The Dutch and Brits (and S- boat Mark 10) just had far fewer of them.

I remember seeing something like that in the editor. Why do they play the same chicken games as US subs than?

Is braking of Jap naval code somehow modelled in the game?

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Every torpedo has its duds - including the Long Lance. I've had more than one ship hit by an IJN dud. The Dutch and Brits (and S- boat Mark 10) just had far fewer of them.

I remember seeing something like that in the editor. Why do they play the same chicken games as US subs than?

Is braking of Jap naval code somehow modelled in the game?

Yes. I am in late Jan 42 PBM and have gotten 1 SigInt report of a "I-*** ordered to xx,yy" off India. I"ll be damned, the sub showed up there! And stuck a torp in a TK...and got a MSW that was sitting there...and then left...

Hopefully, there will be some more of them tidbits coming and I will be more prepared to believe them...

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Every torpedo has its duds - including the Long Lance. I've had more than one ship hit by an IJN dud. The Dutch and Brits (and S- boat Mark 10) just had far fewer of them.

I remember seeing something like that in the editor. Why do they play the same chicken games as US subs than?

Is braking of Jap naval code somehow modelled in the game?

Yes. I am in late Jan 42 PBM and have gotten 1 SigInt report of a "I-*** ordered to xx,yy" off India. I"ll be damned, the sub showed up there! And stuck a torp in a TK...and got a MSW that was sitting there...and then left...

Hopefully, there will be some more of them tidbits coming and I will be more prepared to believe them...

Count yourself lucky - i get message like "I-xx is at ." No location is given. Frustrating![:@]

[jwilkerson]

Regarding taking your historically available assests and seeing if they can do better ...


Why does this argument work for ASW and not for CV ?

I was pointing out the double edged sword. In the game as it is - we have things HARD CODED (i.e. no player controlled parameter can change) to support what some see as "historical doctrine" constraints on CV whereas we support a-historical doctrine for IJN ASW ...

And of course there are those who argue the USN & IJN didn't have significant differences in strike coordination ( and the numbers seem to indicate that - though of course there are those who say the numbers don't indicate reality ) ... while at the same time there are those who say the IJN could never have been able to perform ASW as represented in the game.

I've argued to even out or remove ( make optional ) the hard coded CV coordination and gotten something between agreement and grudging agreement from about 7 out of 8 of the posters in that thread. But here in this ASW thread the disagreement seems to have even more emotional with the two sides far enough apart that dialog seems to have ended in anger ...

ASW seems pretty broke ... but I don't see it breaking the game at this point ... and not sure anyone else does either since they are all still playing !

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Regarding taking your historically available assests and seeing if they can do better ...


Why does this argument work for ASW and not for CV ?

In my view it does work for CV's. If the coordination code is built in because of doctrine, then I say 'take it out!'

However, I know there was a genuine capability problem. The USN tried to coordinate large strikes and had some notable failures, like the Midway example I cited. I also know that the USN got much better at coordinating large strikes later on. Now, that's where my knowledge on this starts to trail off. I don' really know how extensive the problem was, how long it took to fix it, etc. Because of that, I don't know if the code accurately represents the capability or if it needs some tweaking.

I was pointing out the double edged sword. In the game as it is - we have things HARD CODED (i.e. no player controlled parameter can change) to support what some see as "historical doctrine" constraints on CV ...

Again, I agree, if it's in there just to mandate doctrine, then take it out.

[2ndACR]

Sorry about that Panzer. We did start our game about the same time as mine and Ron's and we did not know the effects of it.

[jwilkerson]

Please read the CV Strike Coordination thread ... there was a multi-day ... pretty interesting ...multi-person input exchange .... on the topic of "coordination" and the historical evidence ... then let us [me anyway] know what you think ...

just a tid bit ... for example at Midway ... Hornet SBD do miss the battle when though they launch with Enterprise ... they turn South when Enterprise planes turn North ... however Yorktown SBD though launching an hour later ... effectively strike at the same time as Enterprise SBD ... thus in game terms ...mitigating the Hornet miss... -1 ... +1 ... = 0

But please read thread and respond with your thoughts.

Thx.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

just a tid bit ... for example at Midway ... Hornet SBD do miss the battle when though they launch with Enterprise ... they turn South when Enterprise planes turn North ... however Yorktown SBD though launching an hour later ... effectively strike at the same time as Enterprise SBD ... thus in game terms ...mitigating the Hornet miss... -1 ... +1 ... = 0

Very true! The Yorktown SBD's blasted Soryu right after the Enterprise SBD's took out Akagi and Kaga.

By the way, I believe the game does model chance coordination of different strikes. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that, but I forget if it was in the manual or on these forums.

---

Edited to add: Part way through the other thread, I'll get back to you on it. Fleet Tactics is an outstanding book. I heard he updated it in recent years to cover littoral combat.

[Ron Saueracker]

Having sub doctrine on gives Jap player some breathing room in 1942, with unbeatable KB and worthless allied subs. One thing I don’t get – why Dutch and Brit subs are affected by this doctrine and why do they have duds? Duds plagued US Navy, but RN and Dutch Navy had reliable impact fuse torpedo. Is it intentional feature or just a bug?

One of the many things way off about Allied SubStandard Doctrine.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Sorry about that Panzer. We did start our game about the same time as mine and Ron's and we did not know the effects of it.

Cheeky bugger.[:D] No, really, glad you did because if I'm the only one complaining, nobody will scare off the wolves.[8D]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Prince
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 )

If you want history, I would suggest you stay away from the movies. Most are garbage
in that respect. As to "a compromise between history and game balance"---that is
exactly what i DON'T want. If I want a "balanced game", I'll play chess..., I want an
HISTORICAL game which as much as possible will offer the same challanges that the
historical commanders faced. And please don't respond with some nonsense about
"your not getting shot at, so it isn't real". It's a warGAME---so I shouldn't have to
contract malaria to play it. But my troops (units) should have problems with it---and
they do! We are talking about 1600+ 1-day turns..., so with that level of player invest- ment we should expect a high level of detail in the game.

And it is there in a lot of ways. But that doesn't mean that there aren't areas where it
"falls down". The Ground War and ground movement still produce some strange results.
CD's firing AFTER a bombardment TF has attacked the bases they are defending is
still odd. And being able to conduct ASW warefare at high speed and instantaneously
is still pretty strange. The more accurately the GAME models the actual historical capa-
bilities of the units, the more interesting it is to play. The competition is between the
player and his historical counter-parts. Can you command the Allied Pacific effort bet-
ter than Nimitz did? Do you have a different and more effective way of dealing with the
problems Yamamoto faced? If the game models "super weapons" or other such non-
historic capabilities, then you can't play the role of Nimitz or Yamamoto because they
didn't have such toys to play with. There is so much that is good and even great in this
game that it makes the things that aren't stand out like neon signs. And 2by3's repu-
tation has always been to support their products. Unfortunately, when a game is this
complex and at this level of detail, the support needed will be too. Which is why I said
almost a year ago that I wouldn't have any problem with a $100 or even $120 price
tag. I wasn't just buying a game..., I was buying a "work in progress". And I hate
to see the progress ending when the work is so close to completion.

[Black Cat]

Mike, no offense, but since you usually make interesing posts I want to read, could you please try Paragraphs....I usually stop reading after the the first 3000 word sentence[;)]

Thanks.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Mike, no offense, but since you usually make interesing posts I want to read, could you please try Paragraphs....I usually stop reading after the the first 3000 word sentence[;)]

Thanks.

Read this post, though. It's a good 'un.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Mike, no offense, but since you usually make interesing posts I want to read, could you please try Paragraphs....I usually stop reading after the the first 3000 word sentence[;)]

Thanks.

There ARE two paragraphs. Major problem is the system. I'm going to leave
five spaces between each sentence in this one. But I will bet that they get squashed
together like the ones above. I actually thought I'd kept the sentences in the post
above at pretty reasonable length (for me, anyway). Now to see what happens when
I hit "OK"

[Charles2222]

Peculiar. I reluctantly downloaded the patches up to 1.40 (1.30 and 1.40) and the ASW rating doesn't exist anymore. Is there some sort of steel.prf similar file I have to delete before beginning play? These are on ships that have DC racks BTW.

[Charles2222]

Oh, sorry, I'd been so long away from the game I had forgot that when people mention "ASW ratings" the abbreviation doesn't appear on the unit display (ASW), but rather the ship will say "anti-submarine". My mistake.

[crsutton]

Remember, the real killer of enemy subs in the Atlantic was Huff Duff or RDF intercepts. Simply by taking two or (better) three bearings on a single radio transmission, the Allies were able to accuratly pinpoint the location of the sub sending the signal. It remained to simply vector nearby aircraft or ASW ship to the location. This was the prime reason that the Allies were so sucessful at killing subs in the mid to later stages of the war.

The Allies were pretty good at this in the Pacific as well. They were very adept at using radio intercepts to pinpoint enemy ships-surface as well as subs. That is half the battle if you know where an enemy sub is operating. The Japanese used radio intercepts but I don't think they were as good at it.

This, i believe is not factored in the game.