Didn't ask to limit "technical issues"..., only to be fair with both sides. US had technical problems with the Mk XIV, and they are in the game that way with an option to "fix" them if the player(s) desire to do so. Japanese ASW was technically crap, but that's not the way it is in the game. Why not make it the garbage it historically was in the game..., with an option to "fix" it if the player(s) desire to do so?
Now that would be FAIR.
Nevermind your historical misconceptions, Japanese ASW is already far less effective - compared to the extent of sub threat - than it historically was. That's a fact, that can only be obsctucted by poor sub deployment. Allied subs have much easier time intercepting combat taskforces, and easier time getting first shots than they had historically. I don't consider myself a sub wizard, but sinking/heavily damaging approximately 1 BB, 1 CA, about 10 escorts and 15+ transports - in addition to my subs' actual results, which include damaging 2 CLs (only one torpedo exploded in each case, with good torps both of them could have been goners), damaging 1 CVL, and sinking 1 DD, 1 DMS, plus up to a dozen of transports - would have been a tiny little bit excessive for 2 1/3 months of the war. In fact, that's more hits on large warships that Allies achieved through entire 1942.
So you are playing against an incompetent boob (or the AI, which is the same thing). That is hardly "historical" evidence. I stand by my original statement. Japanese ASW was poorly trained and equipped, and is way over-rated in the game.
Yes they were (used for Naval Search) as I posted above evidance of this can be found in the TROM's.
Frankly your posts are interesting but completelyn unconvincing. Virtually every example you posted includes the words "reconoitered (follow by) "name of an Allied port".
Read the TROMs, their are other examples their of them using the Glens to look for ships at sea.
Quite frankly I did...one by one. Seeing a ship that happens to be floating on the water does not make a naval search.
In my real life I dealt with real naval searches: search and rescue and narcotics interdiction. I also had to contend with real aviators flying real seaplanes with real maintenance issues which clearly demonstrated that simple ordering things to happen neither wins battles nor even necessarily causes things to happen. The maintenance facilities on a submarine suck. It is simply a matter of space: there isn't even any room for the things that have to be there for the boat to function as a submarine. A flight or three was all there was going to be during any deployment because something was going to break and the one part that would fix it was going to be 5000 miles away. If you brought along that one certain part that always breaks some other part would break and you'd still be 5000 miles away from another one. Flying two naval searches per day until your 25000 mile range submarine runs out of fuel for it has nothing whatever to do with the real capabilities of the Glen.
Quite frankly I did...one by one. Seeing a ship that happens to be floating on the water does not make a naval search.
In my real life I dealt with real naval searches: search and rescue and narcotics interdiction. I also had to contend with real aviators flying real seaplanes with real maintenance issues which clearly demonstrated that simple ordering things to happen neither wins battles nor even necessarily causes things to happen. The maintenance facilities on a submarine suck. It is simply a matter of space: there isn't even any room for the things that have to be there for the boat to function as a submarine. A flight or three was all there was going to be during any deployment because something was going to break and the one part that would fix it was going to be 5000 miles away. If you brought along that one certain part that always breaks some other part would break and you'd still be 5000 miles away from another one. Flying two naval searches per day until your 25000 mile range submarine runs out of fuel for it has nothing whatever to do with the real capabilities of the Glen.
Well that's a huge strawman isn't it? A single-plane Glen unit on 100% search simply does not get two searches per day forever.
Yes they were (used for Naval Search) as I posted above evidance of this can be found in the TROM's.
Frankly your posts are interesting but completelyn unconvincing. Virtually every example you posted includes the words "reconoitered (follow by) "name of an Allied port".
Read the TROMs, their are other examples their of them using the Glens to look for ships at sea.
Quite frankly I did...one by one. Seeing a ship that happens to be floating on the water does not make a naval search.
In my real life I dealt with real naval searches: search and rescue and narcotics interdiction. I also had to contend with real aviators flying real seaplanes with real maintenance issues which clearly demonstrated that simple ordering things to happen neither wins battles nor even necessarily causes things to happen. The maintenance facilities on a submarine suck. It is simply a matter of space: there isn't even any room for the things that have to be there for the boat to function as a submarine. A flight or three was all there was going to be during any deployment because something was going to break and the one part that would fix it was going to be 5000 miles away. If you brought along that one certain part that always breaks some other part would break and you'd still be 5000 miles away from another one. Flying two naval searches per day until your 25000 mile range submarine runs out of fuel for it has nothing whatever to do with the real capabilities of the Glen.
Spence, just make a house rule with your opponent. There is no need to tie the hands of the players that don't mind so they can't. I'm one of those that doesn't really care if you use your Glen's to naval search at 100% or not...it just doesn't make that big of an impact on the game.
We need to leave options open, for both sides. The more we hardcode stuff in, the less fun the game becomes. If I want to see WWII play out exactly as it did, I can watch the news-reels of it.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Japanese ASW took a dramatic turn for the better in my game not too long ago.
In 1941 and 1942, the Japanese sank five Allied subs.
In the first five months of 1943, the Japanese have sunk six American subs and have damaged many more.
ASW attacks were rare before the recent patch or hot fix changed things, but they are common now. As you guys move into late '42 and '43 I think you'll find the same thing. Japanse ASW is too potent.
To update this post about the enhanced ability of ASW, I had noted that the Japanese sank five Allied subs in '42 and had sunk six in the first five months of '43. We've played 34 days further into '43 (it's July 4) and the total has risen to 11 subs in '43. The Japanese have claimed another five subs in 34 days.
The subs lost have been in both deep and shallow water. I don't have a single sub set to patrol in a base hex, though I'm sure some have reacted into base hexes.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Oddly enough, the Japanese had WWII's only unique ASW patrol aircraft called the 'Lorna'. I think it was two-engined and looked a bit like an early-model Ju88. The idea was to make it a slow-flying eyeball-in-the-sky armed iwth a couple of bombs or deptch charges. The Japanese also had a magnetic anomoly detector, don't know if the Lorna operated with it.
The Lorna was reasonably successful in its task of spotting US subs, but was mainly used off mainland China, Formosa and the HI. It also proved to be very vulnerable to any form of combat aircraft due to its slow speed, unmanoeverability and lack of defensive armament
The Betty's are absolutely fantastic ASW patrol craft (at least in my game) when crewed by a 65+ expereince group with asw scores higher than 35.
I have 2 groups running out of Rabaul, with a search radius of 6 at 8000 ft. They are attacking - and usually hitting - 2 to 3 subs per day. Got an email from my opponent on Mon - told me he had "over 20" subs in the body and fender shop, and again wanted to know how i was doing it. I have a feeling he was hinting at some sort of house rule, but I honestly dont see what we can do short of restricting the re-assignment of asw captains.
After playing the game since its release the combatants looked to be modded as to be a balanced game for both sides, I'd say the developers did a fantastic job for those players that want balance moreso than simulation of conditions. As one of the folks in the other camp that want the machines of war closely modded as possible to the real thing I feel let down by this issue and atleast 4 other things that seem to be out of whack in an effort to make this game balanced.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
The Lorna was a p.o.s., and like most Japanese real world patrol aircraft, largely in effective at its designed task. It couldn't hold a candle to any of the Allied patrol bombers that weren't purpose built for ASW, such as the PB4Y (B-24 under USN op), much less the PBY, PBM, or garden variety TBM on routine close patrol.
But if you all are gonna carry on about how Japanese ASW being effective is just right, with respect to history, you ought at least have the historical data.
Order Name Cause Date Where
1 Sealion Sunk at mooring by IJAAF 12/10/41 Cavite
2 S - 36 Grounded 1/20/42 Makassar Strait
3 S - 26 Failed to surface during training exercise 1/24/42 Panama
4 Shark Sunk by IJN surface vessel 2/11/42 Molucca Strait
5 Perch Sunk by IJN surface vessel 3/3/42 Java Sea
6 S - 27 Failed to surface during training exercise 6/19/42 Alaskan waters
7 Grunion Lost, cause unknown 7/8/42 Aleutian waters
8 S - 39 Grounded 8/16/42 Coral Sea
9 Argonaut Sunk by IJN surface vessel 1/10/43 Coral Sea
10 Amberjack Damaged by a.c. and sunk by IJN 2/16/43 Coral Sea
11 Grampus Sunk by IJN surface vessel 3/5/43 Coral Sea
12 Triton Sunk by IJN surface vessel 3/15/43 Admiralty Isls.
13 Pickerel Sunk by IJN surface vessel 4/3/43 Japanese waters
14 Grenadier Sunk by IJAAF 4/22/43 Malayan waters
15 Runner Struck mine, origin unknown 5/43 Japanese waters
16 R-12 Failed to surface during training exercise 6/12/43 Key West
17 Grayling Lost, cause unknown 9/12/43 Philippine waters
18 Pompano Struck mine, origin unknown 9/27/43 Japanese waters
19 Cisco Sunk by IJNAF and IJN surface vessel 9/28/43 SoPacific
20 S-44 Sunk by IJN surface vessel 10/7/43 vic. Kurile
21 Wahoo Sunk by aircraft 10/11/43 Japanese waters
22 Dorado Sunk by US aircraft 10/12/43 Canal Zone
23 Corvina Sunk by enemy submarine 11/16/43 Marshalls Isls.
24 Sculpin Sunk by IJN surface vessel 11/19/43 Gilbert Isls.
25 Capelin Sunk by IJN surface vessel 12/9/43 Celebes Sea
26 Scorpion Struck mine, origin unknown 2/24/44 E. China Sea
27 Grayback Sunk by IJNAF and IJN surface vessel 2/26/44 Ryukyu Isl.
28 Trout Sunk by IJN surface vessel 2/29/44 Ryukyu Isl.
29 Tullibee Circular run own torpedo 3/26/44 Palau
30 Gudgeon Sunk by IJNAF and IJN surface vessel 5/11/44 Marianas Isls.
31 Herring Sunk by IJN surface vessel 6/1/44 off Kurile
32 Golet Sunk by IJN surface vessel 6/14/44 Japanese waters
33 S-28 Failed to surface during training exercise 7/4/44 Hawaiian waters
34 Robalo Struck mine, origin unknown 7/26/44 off Borneo
35 Flier Struck mine, origin unknown 8/13/44 off Borneo
36 Harder Sunk by IJN surface vessel 8/24/44 Philippine waters
37 Seawolf Sunk by allied a.c. 10/3/44 off Morotai
38 Darter Grounded 10/24/44 Palawan Strait
39 Shark II Sunk by IJN surface vessel 10/24/44 Luzon Strait
40 Tang Circular run own torpedo 10/24/44 Formosa Strait
41 Escolar Struck mine, origin unknown 10/17/44 Tsushima Strait
42 Albacore Struck mine, origin unknown 11/7/44 Japanese waters
43 Growler Lost, cause unknown 11/8/44 Philippine waters
44 Scamp Sunk by Japanese a.c. and IJN surface vessel 11/11/44 Japanese waters
45 Swordfish Struck mine, origin unknown 1/12/45 Ryukyu Isl.
46 Barbel Sunk by Japanese a.c. 2/4/45 Palawan Strait
47 Kete Lost, cause unknown 3/20/45 Ryukyu Isl.
48 Trigger Sunk by Japanese a.c. and IJN surface vessel 3/28/45 Ryukyu Isl.
49 Snook Lost, cause unknown 4/8/45 off Hainan
50 Lagarto Enemy a.c. 5/3/45 S. China Sea
51 Bonefish Sunk by IJN surface vessel 1/18/45 Japanese waters
52 Bullhead Enemy a.c. 8/6/45 Java Sea
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
In my CG it's now 2/43 and my subs are tearing the Japanese AI TF's apart. My subs are stationed between Truk, Rabaul and the Marshalls, and are getting attacks and hits on at least 3-5 ships per phase. The subs are even attacking destroyers, and getting hits, something unknown in 1942.
Had I turned off the "historic USN torpedo" option at the start of the CG, the AI would probably be looking at over half its merchant fleet on the bottom of the ocean by now if these results are any example.
IMO I honestly believe that subs are too efficient on both sides, perhaps the developers should tone down their effectiveness equally. I have found and observed both sides complaining that on the other side subs are far more effective (even with the US early-war dud torpedo chance) and sink far too many ships. Personally judging from statistics I think the ASW forces (both air and sea) are about right in terms of effectiveness but subs need to be tweaked down by (say) 50% less chance of attacking (not necessarily scoring a hit) per enemy-sighted.
The Glen wasn´t there to find targets for subs, that´s how it´s used in the game but this is not at all comparable to what it was capable in real life. Glens weren´t used on naval search.
Yes they were (used for Naval Search) as I posted above evidance of this can be found in the TROM's.
yes, words on the forum have to be treated like Plutonium for Iran in real life. Yes, Glens were used on naval search, as you´ve posted above. And while I probably have missed another instance, I´ve only found one:
6 May 1942:
The I-30's "Glen" floatplane sights elements of the British Fleet en route from Durban to Madagascar.
And do we even know if this was a "nav search mission" or was the Glen on it´s way somewhere to do a recon and just spotted the ships on it´s way to or back from the target?
The US dropped 2 atomic bombs, why can´t I drop 300 in 45? The Glen was used a couple of times for naval search, why is it used ten thousand times in AE over the years? The Glen was used for recon, not nav search like in the game when all Glens are in the air every day doing NAV SEARCH. Everyone that thinks this was what happened in real life is pretty much off the mark.
And to avoid any confusion, I don´t have a problem with it in the game, but it´s not realistic.
Yes they were (used for Naval Search) as I posted above evidance of this can be found in the TROM's.
Frankly your posts are interesting but completelyn unconvincing. Virtually every example you posted includes the words "reconoitered (follow by) "name of an Allied port".
that´s exactly what I mean, nav search is something completely different.
Yes they were (used for Naval Search) as I posted above evidance of this can be found in the TROM's.
Frankly your posts are interesting but completelyn unconvincing. Virtually every example you posted includes the words "reconoitered (follow by) "name of an Allied port".
Read the TROMs, their are other examples their of them using the Glens to look for ships at sea.
Is it worth it to go them all through to find a patrol where the sub had launched it´s Glen twice a day to fly a couple of hundred miles on naval search for a patrol duration of two months? I probably won´t find it guess. I´m a JFB but I hardly can see the use of Glens in AE or WITP as anywhere realistic when they are used on nav search. Like nearly all other people I used them too, but it´s not realistic. Not at all.
