Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
The Manual menctions it in several places but I cant seem to find it.....help here would be much appreciated.
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
That option has been eliminated.
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
Why was it eliminated??
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:51 am
- Location: SoCal
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
Because the devs didn't think of it as important. I had asked the same question you are asking, and that's what they replied (do a search and you might find the thread).
Most likely, there are only so many toggle buttons you can fit on the page where you select the options, so since they added new options, something had to give. Jap Sub Doc got the shaft.
I now find I am not really missing it.
Most likely, there are only so many toggle buttons you can fit on the page where you select the options, so since they added new options, something had to give. Jap Sub Doc got the shaft.
I now find I am not really missing it.
-
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: Karrick
Why was it eliminated??
I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway. [:(]
- Pascal_slith
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
- Location: back in Commiefornia
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Karrick
Why was it eliminated??
I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway. [:(]
I never set it to the historical choice, but does that mean that WitP AE forces the historical choice? If so, what a bummer and I would certainly like to see it return in a patch.
So much WitP and so little time to play....
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
I never set it to the historical choice, but does that mean that WitP AE forces the historical choice? If so, what a bummer and I would certainly like to see it return in a patch.
Doesn't AE force the ahistorical choice.
- jwilkerson
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
- Location: Kansas
- Contact:
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway. [:(]
The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.
All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.
AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
- Pascal_slith
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
- Location: back in Commiefornia
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
Thanks for clarification!
So much WitP and so little time to play....
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.
All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.
Thank you for responding. (I was hoping there was a way too tone down the pesky Jap subs.....losing a an AK full of supplies hurts...but if it more historical without the switch...I am ok with that.)
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: Karrick
. . . I was hoping there was a way too tone down the pesky Jap subs.....losing a an AK full of supplies hurts...but if it more historical without the switch...I am ok with that.
Wait til you lose a P-40 squadron in an xAK heading to fighter-less Australia!
Now THAT hurts!
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.
All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.
Thanks for the clear response. Helps a lot!
Pax
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway. [:(]
The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.
All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.
I would like to know where you got those figures.
I checked the American Merchant Marine at War web site at http://www.usmm.org and got a list of merchant ships sunk by torpedos/sub attack and got these figures for the entire war:
1941 - 18 attacks, 7 ships sunk
1942 - 12 attacks, 9 ships sunk
1943 - 22 attacks, 11 ships sunk or total losses
1944 - 3 attacks, 3 ships sunk
1945 - 4 attacks, 2 total losses
The total was 59 attacks for 32 ships loss or written off (for the entire war). The major killer of merchant ships seemed to have been bombs and kamikazi aircraft.
I have a list of the ships attacked I can post.
P.S.: Mike I always played with it set to historical because the Japanese DID stick to the warship priority mentality.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
-
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
A lot of the 60+ sinkings occured in the IO. Presumably those ships would have been mostly of British and Dutch registry.
I agree with you about the IJN's warship first mentality . . . at least before circumstances made them decide to waste their remaining potential by using them as supply boats.
I agree with you about the IJN's warship first mentality . . . at least before circumstances made them decide to waste their remaining potential by using them as supply boats.
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
A lot of the 60+ sinkings occured in the IO. Presumably those ships would have been mostly of British and Dutch registry.
I agree with you about the IJN's warship first mentality . . . at least before circumstances made them decide to waste their remaining potential by using them as supply boats.
Indian Ocean sub attacks:
1941 - none
1942 - 12 attacks, 12 sunk
1943 - 19 attacks, 14 sunk
1944 - 9 attacks, 9 sunk
1945 - 1 attack, 1 sunk
Total for the IO was 41 attacks and 36 sunk. Add that to the Pacific/West Coast/Alaska numbers previously posted by me and that comes to 100 attacks with 68 ships sunk. This is for the entire war. The numbers still don't add up to the "60 ships in the first 6 months".
There were other ships sunk/loss listed but they were NOT by submarine attack.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
- Richard III
- Posts: 713
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:16 pm
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
I must respectfully disagree with your figures and conclusions. The Japanese sub doctrine was to attack Combat units, with CV`s at the top of the list, and then BB`s and CA`s with merchants at the bottom if at all. It must be blindingly obvious that the I/R-Boats, even when they could, never even bothered to try and attack merchant shipping along the west coast or we would have had a west coast " Black Week " as the U-Boats gave the East Coast.
There were never, ever, the kinds of historical losses along the West Coast - Pearl - Suva - Brisbane supply route that I`m seeing in my current 3 CG starts.
The combination of deadly Sub attacks and useless Allied early way Anti Sub with too few useless escorts, results in ***far too much*** attrition in ships and important cargo. It`s hard to believe that this " new" setting was play tested in a few full VS The AI campaign tests and seems just another way the allies get " slowed down" in the AE version of game and provides more " fun" for the vocal PBEM folks.
This is a _massive_ change in the game design, and was a very poor design decision IMO for those amoung us who still view AE/WITP as a strategic simulation. It`s also something not readly " fixed" in the editor, if at all.
PS: Mike Scholl. I and quite a few other people played with the historical setting "on"
There were never, ever, the kinds of historical losses along the West Coast - Pearl - Suva - Brisbane supply route that I`m seeing in my current 3 CG starts.
The combination of deadly Sub attacks and useless Allied early way Anti Sub with too few useless escorts, results in ***far too much*** attrition in ships and important cargo. It`s hard to believe that this " new" setting was play tested in a few full VS The AI campaign tests and seems just another way the allies get " slowed down" in the AE version of game and provides more " fun" for the vocal PBEM folks.
This is a _massive_ change in the game design, and was a very poor design decision IMO for those amoung us who still view AE/WITP as a strategic simulation. It`s also something not readly " fixed" in the editor, if at all.
PS: Mike Scholl. I and quite a few other people played with the historical setting "on"
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway. [:(]
The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.
All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.
“History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.”
¯ Leo Tolstoy
¯ Leo Tolstoy
-
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
I guess it depends on the source. This one lists approx. 38 allied merchant ships sunk by IJN subs through 3/9/42. I'll see what else I can find.
http://www.thaiwreckdiver.com/documents ... 941-42.doc
http://www.thaiwreckdiver.com/documents ... 941-42.doc
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
I got an error message when I tried to download the link.
In WitP the IJN boats almost always get to shoot at the Allied escorts first. And the IJN ASW ships almost always get to shoot at the Allied subs first. If there was really much of a connection to reality in this particular set of mechanics the RL historical losses of each side should reflect it. They do not.
In WitP the IJN boats almost always get to shoot at the Allied escorts first. And the IJN ASW ships almost always get to shoot at the Allied subs first. If there was really much of a connection to reality in this particular set of mechanics the RL historical losses of each side should reflect it. They do not.
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
This is a JFB thing. I argued this years ago with the original WiTP. The I class submarine had first rate torpedoes and crews. However, the boat was a pig. It was too large, too noisy and could only dive to 200 feet. The latter fact is critical, as the boat can't get under the thermal layer, making it easy to detect by primitive sonar. None of this is reflected in the DB. Additionally, these things can take more punishment than a cruiser. In fact, this performance had a lot to do with the poor performance of Japanese ASW. As their subs could only dive to 200 feet, they assumed that USN subs were also so limited, causing them to set their depth charges to no neeper that 200 feet. All USN subs, except for a few of the very large boats and the S boats, had a test dive of 300 feet, later boats had a test dive of 350 feet.
That being said and agreeing with comments about the poor modeling of Japanese submarine doctrine, I do not have a probem with these submarines engaging in commerce warfare. However, I have not sunk a Japanese sub since they modded this. On the other hand, I have not lost a single ship that was adequately escorted. Whatever they did with the mod also works for US subs. I haven't had a submerged sub damaged since the mod. I figure by mid 44 I will sink the entire Japanese Merchant Marine.
The real effect of this mod is that the automatic convoy system is too dangerous to use. This makes for a lot of additional work with convoys, with dozens of bases that must be supplied by escorted convoys. A real PITA.
That being said and agreeing with comments about the poor modeling of Japanese submarine doctrine, I do not have a probem with these submarines engaging in commerce warfare. However, I have not sunk a Japanese sub since they modded this. On the other hand, I have not lost a single ship that was adequately escorted. Whatever they did with the mod also works for US subs. I haven't had a submerged sub damaged since the mod. I figure by mid 44 I will sink the entire Japanese Merchant Marine.
The real effect of this mod is that the automatic convoy system is too dangerous to use. This makes for a lot of additional work with convoys, with dozens of bases that must be supplied by escorted convoys. A real PITA.
HHi
RE: Where is the Japanese Submarine Doctrine toggle switch?
http://www.combinedfleet.com/ss.htm
Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces.
The Japanese did, of course, make some attacks on merchant shipping in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but these were the minority of missions. Frequently, they waited for fleets that were never seen, supported spectacularly brave but inconsequential reconnaissance flights, or toted midget submarines about, all of which achieved rather less than was possible with so valuable a resource as the Japanese submarine fleet. Worse from a naval perspective, Japanese submarines were increasingly employed in running supplies to the starving garrisons of isolated islands. The Japanese expended hundreds of sorties in this way, which might have otherwise been used offensively against the Allied war effort. A submarine's cargo capacity was much less than that of a relatively inexpensive freighter. However, Japan was understandably reluctant to let island garrisons starve. Additionally, many practically unarmed submarines (including 26 built for Army use) were built specifically for the supply role, consuming production resources as well.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/World_Wa ... operations
Japanese doctrine and equipment
For the Imperial Japanese Navy, however, submarines, as part of the Japanese warrior tradition of bushido, preferred to attack warships rather than transports. Faced with a convoy, an Allied submarine would try to sink the merchant vessels, while their Japanese counterparts would give first priority to the escorts. This was important in 1942, before Allied warship production came up to capacity. So, while the U.S. had an unusually long supply line between its west coast and frontline areas that was vulnerable to submarine attack, Japan's submarines were instead used for long range reconnaissance and to resupply strongholds which had been cut off, such as Truk and Rabaul.
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleof ... einWo.html
Japanese submarines accounted for about 184 merchant ships with a tonnage of 907,000 tons, ( included in these figures are 98 US ships of 520,000 tons ). In addition they sank 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Cruisers, and 10 Destroyers.
http://www.historynet.com/japanese-subm ... n-1941.htm
Over a seven-day period, from December 18 to 24, 1941, nine Japanese submarines positioned at strategic points along the U.S. west coast attacked eight American merchant ships, of which two were sunk and two damaged. Six seamen were killed. It was the first and only time during the three years and eight months of war to come that more than one Japanese submarine appeared at the same time off the American coast.
I can't find the link (didn't think to copy it down along with the above) but there was one that mentioned Japanese submarines were only allocated one torpedo per merchant ship.
PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)