Page 1 of 1
Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:29 pm
by morocco mole
Hello!
New Player. Can anyone tell me what turning on Allied Sub Doctine does?
Thanks
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:04 pm
by Rohna
Allied Sub Doctrine indicates the preference to target transports over warships, with Jap Sub Doctrine being the opposite i think.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:08 pm
by Ron Saueracker
DON"T USE IT!!![X(]
Has nothing to do with actual Allied sub doctrine, it's some imaginary penalty that made it into the game.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:12 pm
by medicff
I agree with Ron don't use it. I believe allied doctrine is the initial cautious and timid early allied sub operations which rarely will attack in the early war (pre 1943) whereas the Jap sub doctrine is the preference of warships over transports initially and will ignore transports in the early war.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:30 pm
by madflava13
It makes Allied subs incredibly timid until 1943 sometime. Under no circumstances should you use it!
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:36 pm
by ckk
Don't use it for all of the above and the fact that even if the subs do attack they will still suffer the terrible dud rates until 1943[:(]
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:36 am
by rtrapasso
Typical results if you turn on Allied Sub Doctrine: 3 sub attacks in 8 months.
It penalyzes ALL Allied submarine attacks for US doctrine - even if they are British, or Dutch.
It is similar to Japanese sub doctrine - the subs will preferentially attack warships.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:52 am
by jwilkerson
For me - the reason to turn both sub doctrines off is to remove as much fore knowledge as possible. For example if the Allies KNOW that Japanese Doctrine is on ... they will never escort non-front line convoy's ... and this makes a useful difference even if the number of merchant ships sunk ( if they are escorted ) is actually pretty low.
So I like the "Mogami" doctrine concept. After playing one game where my allied subs got slaughtered ... i got wise and now I mostly keep them out of the way of KB and mostly out of shallow water ... and losses and have gone way down and sinkings are about the same. My goal is to be useful but survive. So in a sense this is the same effect that those who advocate turning doctrine on are after ... but it can be done without turning on the doctrine and ensuring that maximum de-fanging has occurred and is known to have occurred by the opponent.
So I'm a "Doctrine Off" guy for both sides.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:32 am
by bradfordkay
Guys, I have to say that my experiences are not the same as you are describing. I've been playing allies against the AI, using both allied and japanese sub doctrine (with the computer controlling my subs for the main part). I haven't sunk all that many japanese ships, but I still average a sub attack a day (of course, only avbout 10% even produce hits). I have lost about 8 transports, 4 destroyers and 6 MSWs to Japanese subs (mainly in the Cairns/Townsville maelstrom). My 3-6 ship ASW forces have sunk about 15 japanese subs, again mainly in the aforementioned hotspot. I have lost only about 4 subs myself, so you oculd say that they are being timid, but using the doctrine has not seemed to be as disastrous as you are describing.
I think that some games go one way and some another. In my last game I had sunk about 12 jap subs by ASW air patrol (okay, maybe the naval search patrols - not positive either way on that) and only 3 by my ships. In this game none have been sunk by air ASW, but my ships are far more effective. It's just the way the dice are falling, I believe.
BTW: Morocco Mole, Great name!!!
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:53 pm
by steve99x
Also keep in mind that this is an historical simulation...
I like to play using the resources AND doctrines available at the time...
the reason the subs were timid, is due to the unreliability of the torps...
should we leave the tactical up to the AI? depends on what you want to get out of the game...
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:24 am
by Sardaukar
And there was also torpedo shortage in addition to duds, so maybe that Allied Sub doctrine is quite historical.
Cheers,
M.S.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:39 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: steve99x
Also keep in mind that this is an historical simulation...
I like to play using the resources AND doctrines available at the time...
the reason the subs were timid, is due to the unreliability of the torps...
should we leave the tactical up to the AI? depends on what you want to get out of the game...
The subs were not timid because of torps, some prewar guys were just career types with no stomach for and too many peacetime habits for the realities of war. Many sub COs disregarded orders and "deactivated" the magnetic exploders so the torps would work on contact, not knowing of course that the torps were running 14 feet deeper than designed.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:45 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
And there was also torpedo shortage in addition to duds, so maybe that Allied Sub doctrine is quite historical.
Cheers,
M.S.
Simple issue is this. During the war the subs attacked and expended too many torps according to the advocates of the "one shot, one ship" club. The subs attacked everything and anything. The "Allied Sub Doctrine" in WITP hinders both, making attacks rare (wrongly assuming that the few COs which did suck were the majority and that they were in command until mid 43) and primarily against warships (wrong again, unrestricted sub warfare was declared immediately after Pearl Harbor...meaning that merchants were viable targets and would be sunk without warning).
This option, as designed, has very little to do with history and is completely based on incorrect assumptions.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:16 am
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
This option, as designed, has very little to do with history and is completely based on incorrect assumptions.
Well, I don't like the "Sub-standard doctrine" either, but it has some relation to reality, even though lack of torpedoes shouldn't be modelled like this.
I think it shouldn't be so powerful in effect, but without it Allied subs are bit too powerful in early war, even with duds.
Cheers,
M.S.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:04 pm
by Halsey
I would like to throw this in for the IJN subs. Part of the reason why they get whomped so bad by Allied ASW has to do with crew experience and maneuver rating. Are these being adjusted for the CHM?
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:51 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Halsey
I would like to throw this in for the IJN subs. Part of the reason why they get whomped so bad by Allied ASW has to do with crew experience and maneuver rating. Are these being adjusted for the CHM?
I've been thinking about this a lot. Vs Mogami in our stock scen match, I've lost approximately 15 US and Dutch subs in total over 6 months. That is roughly triple the loss rate. I've become more concerned with this as the hits are becoming more frequent and it's only been three six months. I really hope that there is a hard ceiling for crew skill and that it is not 99!! Crews got diluted IRL, especially USN as the USN expanded at an incredible rate and veterans were sprinkled in with reserve and hostilities only crew. In WITP, this does not happen. I really wish they would have modelled ship crews like LCU squads and have them be vulnerable to loss during combat . Unfortunately, they screwed this up too and got it backwards as any low exp replacements adopt the exp rating of the LCUnit instead of having the units overall exp drop because of the influx of low exp replacements.[8|]
Or at the very least, they could have made the experience levels for ships in the various navies universal (every ship in a specific navy has the same rating instead of ship specific) due to the inherent dilution due to new construction. The universal rating would be affected by monthly experience gains but minus some fraction of a percentage for each new ship which arrives as reinforcement throughout the game, based on size of course). This would have kept the crew skill rating down, an important factor considering how seruously weighted crew exp seems to be for combat.
As for lowering the exp ratings for ships in the CHS mod, I'm not sure yet but I think it may be necessary. I'd like to drop the exp ratings of the starting pilots of the AVG and the Army Air Force pilots though. Too much Hollywood based "fact" used to set the ratings. Welch at Pearl Harbor is like a 98!! Who is this guy, Ben Afleck? So what if he managed to take off with a wingman and shoot down a few Vals...oooh, must be a god in the air. And the AVG is equally ridiculous...they were a bunch of mercenaries who may or may not have been adequate combat pilots but in the 90's? Why not make all pilots a 90 + skilled air ace? Give me a break. I guess Werner Moelders should be a 200+ experience rating then...
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:03 pm
by Halsey
Increased maneuver ratings would benefit both sides submarine forces for survivability. It seems this game only increases crew experience if they get attacked. Not for accomplishing a successful attack. Is this right? Or, is it different for surface and submarine forces?
Example: I have the Erie in a PBEM game with 2 confirmed sub kills. The ships crew rating is only 45/35, and they have a weak officer to boot! I would've thought their experience would skyrocket. It didn't though.
RE: Allied Sub Doctrine
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:11 pm
by Tristanjohn
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Halsey
I would like to throw this in for the IJN subs. Part of the reason why they get whomped so bad by Allied ASW has to do with crew experience and maneuver rating. Are these being adjusted for the CHM?
I've been thinking about this a lot. Vs Mogami in our stock scen match, I've lost approximately 15 US and Dutch subs in total over 6 months. That is roughly triple the loss rate. I've become more concerned with this as the hits are becoming more frequent and it's only been three six months. I really hope that there is a hard ceiling for crew skill and that it is not 99!! Crews got diluted IRL, especially USN as the USN expanded at an incredible rate and veterans were sprinkled in with reserve and hostilities only crew. In WITP, this does not happen. I really wish they would have modelled ship crews like LCU squads and have them be vulnerable to loss during combat . Unfortunately, they screwed this up too and got it backwards as any low exp replacements adopt the exp rating of the LCUnit instead of having the units overall exp drop because of the influx of low exp replacements.[8|]
Or at the very least, they could have made the experience levels for ships in the various navies universal (every ship in a specific navy has the same rating instead of ship specific) due to the inherent dilution due to new construction. The universal rating would be affected by monthly experience gains but minus some fraction of a percentage for each new ship which arrives as reinforcement throughout the game, based on size of course). This would have kept the crew skill rating down, an important factor considering how seruously weighted crew exp seems to be for combat.
As for lowering the exp ratings for ships in the CHS mod, I'm not sure yet but I think it may be necessary. I'd like to drop the exp ratings of the starting pilots of the AVG and the Army Air Force pilots though. Too much Hollywood based "fact" used to set the ratings. Welch at Pearl Harbor is like a 98!! Who is this guy, Ben Afleck? So what if he managed to take off with a wingman and shoot down a few Vals...oooh, must be a god in the air. And the AVG is equally ridiculous...they were a bunch of mercenaries who may or may not have been adequate combat pilots but in the 90's? Why not make all pilots a 90 + skilled air ace? Give me a break. I guess Werner Moelders should be a 200+ experience rating then...
As for the AVG, they were drilled beforehand by Chennault for a couple of months to fight in pairs and in vertical space (and never
never dogfight) and thus make the most of the P-40's advantage of superior speed versus the Japanese. It seems to have worked. That, plus there must have been no little inherent flying talent in the unit or all the "drilling" in the world wouldn't have allowed them to achieve the success they actually did so fast--over a 4:1 kill ratio for sure, and I've seen estimates going on 6:1. (Unless it was that $500 bonus they were paid for every kill. [:D])
Do whatever you want with the AVG but I'd suggest not dropping them so low as to negate their historical success, which was nothing short of phenomenal for that period of the war.
I agree re pilot ratings. They just zoom up into the stratosphere, with plenty of 90+ hotshots to go around. It's silly.
Ship crew ratings aren't right. I guess not much thought was given to that. They're the same as LCUs in regard to absorbing replacements with no drop in efficiency.
My submarine losses are starting to go up as well. But I have it worse than you: US sub doctrine was toggled on for our PBEM, and so my boats won't even attack. (That was a rude awakening. [:(])