How bad is the allied sub doctrine
Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 10:00 pm
I have read several old threads about how bad the allied sub doctrine is. Is that still true?
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: madmickey
I have read several old threads about how bad the allied sub doctrine is. Is that still true?
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Don't agree to the Allied sub doctrine because it is BOGUS! Your subs don't fire at anything. Don't overcommit in Burma...use the SEAsia Chinese.
ORIGINAL: Rob322
Oh yes, totally agree with Ron S. NO Allied Sub doctrine, all you have in a bunch of subs that come home low and gas but loaded up with torpedoes. [:-] Certainly you need to spend some time weeding out weak commanders from the US Sub force but turning off that doctrine does most of the trick. Your torps suck but you will score some kills. The only drawback is that your subs will get shot at more often but as Japanese ASW is not the most fearsome force on the planet, let those guys earn their commands.
ORIGINAL: BraveHome
On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.
So there's always two sides....
While that may be, the thread had to do with its playability, not its historicity....[;)]ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: BraveHome
On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.
So there's always two sides....
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Allied Sub Doctrine is a reflection of false assumptions, not anything anywhere near the historical situation.
ORIGINAL: BraveHome
While that may be, the thread had to do with its playability, not its historicity....[;)]ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: BraveHome
On the other hand, Dan Stafford (an experienced and successful gamer) desires Allied Sub Doctrine be on. He feels this grants his subs longevity until their better torps come in, making them more effective in the long term (and giving the commanders additional experience in the meanwhile). He uses many for successful mining operations early on.
So there's always two sides....
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Allied Sub Doctrine is a reflection of false assumptions, not anything anywhere near the historical situation.
ORIGINAL: Hornblower
Ok i admit it, i looked up historicity to see if that was a legit word!!!! [:'(]