Page 1 of 1
DBB-C question
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:13 pm
by khyberbill
I just started a PBEM with dennishe with DBB-C with SL and very restricted ship loads. The problem is ASW. I have six ASW TF's around Pearl chasing the subs typically found there after the start and we are now up to 22 Jan 42 and not one hit on a sub. Lots of attacks and the ASW TF's are chasing the subs all over the place but not a hit after six weeks. Is this WAD? Are submarines now invincible?
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:54 pm
by dennishe
ORIGINAL: khyberbill
I just started a PBEM with dennishe with DBB-C with SL and very restricted ship loads. The problem is ASW. I have six ASW TF's around Pearl chasing the subs typically found there after the start and we are now up to 22 Jan 42 and not one hit on a sub. Lots of attacks and the ASW TF's are chasing the subs all over the place but not a hit after six weeks. Is this WAD? Are submarines now invincible?
The only damaged Japanese submarine near Pearl Harbor was hit by a Bolo. No hits were scored by ASW ships, despite many attempts...
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:20 am
by witpqs
Posted in your AAR - got a Babes 28-C started Dec 2011 with game now just entering Oct 1942 - no such problem.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:44 am
by CT Grognard
Same here. DBB-C game now in mid-November 1942 - and the Allied ASW works just fine, I've lost quite a few subs.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:00 am
by khyberbill
I also have a game that started in June 2011 with DBB-C with no problems. This version of DBB-C is different. Not only is the cargo capacity reduced, but the transport ships range is also reduced. This PBEM was started in )ct 2013.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Posted in your AAR - got a Babes 28-C started Dec 2011 with game now just entering Oct 1942 - no such problem.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:01 am
by JocMeister
Also posted in dennishes AAR.
Playing DBB-L though. But 5 subs sunk on each side by DCs.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:08 am
by khyberbill
As mentioned above, I am playing two separate PBEMS with DBB-C and they are different. The difference being the range of transport ships and the lack of ASW effectiveness.
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Also posted in dennishes AAR.
Playing DBB-L though. But 5 subs sunk on each side by DCs.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:23 pm
by Symon
ORIGINAL: khyberbill
As mentioned above, I am playing two separate PBEMS with DBB-C and they are different. The difference being the range of transport ships and the lack of ASW effectiveness.
I am sorry you are having issues, but I have developed and posted all of the Babes scenarios.
ALL DBB scenarios (A, B, C) are posted Aug 31, 2012. They have not been changed. Nothing is different except perhaps the Beta exe, but Michael would not (cannot) adapt the exe to ship range, etc ..
Your specific issues are to be found somewhere else. Ciao. JWE
[ed] if you do find out what's going on, please let me know.
RE: DBB-C question
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:24 am
by khyberbill
On the 26th of Jan, 1941 one of my subs was hit 8 times by surface Japanese ASW so it just seems that all my surface ASW has been getting a lot of bad dice rolls. And I meant the endurance of ships not range.
ORIGINAL: Symon
ORIGINAL: khyberbill
As mentioned above, I am playing two separate PBEMS with DBB-C and they are different. The difference being the range of transport ships and the lack of ASW effectiveness.
I am sorry you are having issues, but I have developed and posted all of the Babes scenarios.
ALL DBB scenarios (A, B, C) are posted Aug 31, 2012. They have not been changed. Nothing is different except perhaps the Beta exe, but Michael would not (cannot) adapt the exe to ship range, etc ..
Your specific issues are to be found somewhere else. Ciao. JWE
[ed] if you do find out what's going on, please let me know.