Total Fail (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


crsutton -> Total Fail (3/5/2012 6:43:40 PM)

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]




pompack -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 6:54:04 PM)

The problem has always been that the engine ignores sensor capabilites and strictly uses the number of weapons to determine kill probability




henry1611 -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 6:54:06 PM)

I had a similarly frustrating experience as the Allies with Downfall. I kept losing sub after sub.

I opened up the scenario in the Scenario Editor, made the changes to the E Class suggested in this thread (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2741177) and said "Yes" when I opened up the save game, thereby incorporating the database changes into my on-going game. I noticed an immediate difference for the better and did not notice any problems with updating an on-going game.

May be worth a look.




Canoerebel -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:34:19 PM)

Back in my AAR with Miller ("Shattered Vow"), this kind of stuff prompted me to go back and look at the number of USN subs sunk throughout the war.  I forget the exact number - I think it was in the 90s - so in the first half of '44 you've lost roughly half the number that the United States lost in the entire war (and I think that included the Atlantic!).  Of course, this is whacked out.  It has prompted a number of Allied players to switch the uses of USN subs to mainly serving as a picket line in deep water and for mining.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:42:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
The problem has always been that the engine ignores sensor capabilites and strictly uses the number of weapons to determine kill probability



Which is totally a SOP to the JFB crowd. Someone should do a mod that allows the US to load 10,000 depth charges on a liberty ship with 20 K-guns to a side. See how the JFB's like facing an escort with an ASW rating of 250. [:D][:D][:D]




crsutton -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:46:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
The problem has always been that the engine ignores sensor capabilites and strictly uses the number of weapons to determine kill probability





Which is totally a SOP to the JFB crowd. Someone should do a mod that allows the US to load 10,000 depth charges on a liberty ship with 20 K-guns to a side. See how the JFB's like facing an escort with an ASW rating of 250. [:D][:D][:D]



Well, I have no problem with Allied ASW. I have pretty much neutralized the Japanese sub force in 44. But I expected that. Can anyone say that that should not be the case? In fact although there are quite a few things about the sub game that I am not happy with, if this one thing was fixed I would shut up. (mostly [;)]) But this thing just stinks...I mean really stinks.




Chickenboy -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:48:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


[irritating JFB mode on/] Ha! Perhaps you bad Admiral, dogface GI! Japanese sailors kill many subs! Japanese sailors superior in all ways! You die, Yankee sailor dog! [/irritating JFB mode off]




LST Express -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:55:04 PM)

It's May 45 in my pbem and I'm afraid to go count the number of subs I've lost. But I figure there are things my opponent might not be too happy about either so I just drive on. [:)]




Chickenboy -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 7:57:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Can anyone say that that should not be the case?


Yes. I can say that.

I don't mean it, but I can say it just to get your dander up. [:'(]





crsutton -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 8:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Back in my AAR with Miller ("Shattered Vow"), this kind of stuff prompted me to go back and look at the number of USN subs sunk throughout the war.  I forget the exact number - I think it was in the 90s - so in the first half of '44 you've lost roughly half the number that the United States lost in the entire war (and I think that included the Atlantic!).  Of course, this is whacked out.  It has prompted a number of Allied players to switch the uses of USN subs to mainly serving as a picket line in deep water and for mining.


Averaged about one a month for the whole war. I think only three to ASW in all of 42.




crsutton -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 8:07:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


[irritating JFB mode on/] Ha! Perhaps you bad Admiral, dogface GI! Japanese sailors kill many subs! Japanese sailors superior in all ways! You die, Yankee sailor dog! [/irritating JFB mode off]


You can always count on the Poultry man to rub salt in a wound...[:D]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 9:00:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Back in my AAR with Miller ("Shattered Vow"), this kind of stuff prompted me to go back and look at the number of USN subs sunk throughout the war.  I forget the exact number - I think it was in the 90s - .


You're off by almost 100%.





Schanilec -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 9:12:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Back in my AAR with Miller ("Shattered Vow"), this kind of stuff prompted me to go back and look at the number of USN subs sunk throughout the war.  I forget the exact number - I think it was in the 90s - .


You're off by almost 100%.




I believe it was 52 Subs lost to all causes. Right?




Treetop64 -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 9:28:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


[irritating JFB mode on/] Ha! Perhaps you bad Admiral, dogface GI! Japanese sailors kill many subs! Japanese sailors superior in all ways! You die, Yankee sailor dog! [/irritating JFB mode off]


I am laugh! [:D]




mdiehl -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 10:01:13 PM)

quote:

this kind of stuff prompted me to go back and look at the number of USN subs sunk throughout the war. I forget the exact number - I think it was in the 90s -


52 American submarines were lost during the entire war on all global fronts, including those lost to grounding, collisions, and training accidents. He's lost more US subs in a month than the Japanese sank during the entire war.




RisingSun -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 10:25:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


Are you using any mod or just plain vanilla scenario?




DD696 -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 10:34:40 PM)

I have a picture of the plaque at the US Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland showing submarines lost during WWII, but it is too large to attach, and I am too lazy at the moment to re-size it.

Fifty two submarines lost in the entire war from all causes is correct. Sometimes the game gets it close, and sometimes it goes off on a wild tangent that in no way approximates what actually happened. I like to have a bit of reality mixed in with a good deal of "it could have been possible" play. Otherwise, it would be quite a long, boring, game.

Your losses are outside the realm of possibility, I would say. DaBabes scenarios help to restore some sense of normalcy here, but, of course, that is no help to you and all the time you have spent on your game.




crsutton -> RE: Total Fail (3/5/2012 11:07:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


Are you using any mod or just plain vanilla scenario?


Stock, scen #2 so I expect there are more than in scen #1. Still, one of those bastards is too many....




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 1:24:07 AM)

Sub warware is much better in AE than in stock




castor troy -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 7:25:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]



solution = DaBabes or Babeslite [;)] brings it to a more realistic stage. Vanilla is more like Kriegsmarine in the Pacific with the USN subs acting as the Uboats with the well known outcome...




USS America -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 12:58:50 PM)

Just starting a PBEM match using Nik's May 1942 start. The scenario already includes toned down Uber E's. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out.




lb4269 -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 1:50:12 PM)

A book that might interest:

[image]local://upfiles/14044/3389BE15A7894069889AF7D8BB33A104.jpg[/image]

It's the story of the 52 lost subs.




Sardaukar -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 4:46:09 PM)

"Super E" problem was the number of DC throwers bundled together in one ship. DaBabes solved that by splitting the weapons to different groups and problem was solved.




Historiker -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 4:49:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

42 Allied subs sunk in the first half of 1944. Nine in the last 20 days! Eight of the nine have gone down to the super E type escort which have accounted for about 75% of the total. It is bad enough that my subs are not really that effective in the first place but it just totally escapes me why this total craptacular fantasy has not been addressed. I have to sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging by these wonderful Japanese ships.

There. I have had my rant. [:@]


[irritating JFB mode on/] Ha! Perhaps you bad Admiral, dogface GI! Japanese sailors kill many subs! Japanese sailors superior in all ways! You die, Yankee sailor dog! [/irritating JFB mode off]

[:D]




Historiker -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 4:51:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Just starting a PBEM match using Nik's May 1942 start. The scenario already includes toned down Uber E's. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

Will no help you, dogface sailor GI! [:D]




crsutton -> RE: Total Fail (3/6/2012 9:41:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

"Super E" problem was the number of DC throwers bundled together in one ship. DaBabes solved that by splitting the weapons to different groups and problem was solved.



Which sounds appealing but is of no help to those of us who are two years into a stock campaign game and look to be at it for another year or two. Ark and I started our game within weeks of AE coming out and have been through a lot of bugs and great fixes since then. Just really don't know why this one never got addressed.

Of course, as the Japanese player he may not be so disenchanted with the super E boat........




jmalter -> RE: Total Fail (3/7/2012 12:28:54 AM)

have you considered options you might pursue, that might be better than just passively watching your fleet-boats get tagged 1by1, while they continue to execute their current orders? i can think of several:

a) expand patrol-zones, give each subTF a 3rd faraway hex, hoping to reduce their DLs.
b) coalesce patrol-zones, flood some hexes w/ many subTFs, attempt to sink uber-Es that've expended their ammo.
c) change fleet-boat strategic role from 'commerce-destroyer' to 'scout-picket'.
d) concentrate sub use in areas under the edges of your air-umbrella.
e) use penetrating CL/DD raids to attack IJN convoys & attrit their escorts.
f) increase air-ops against ASW search-planes and their bases/tenders.

when the enemy ASW capability surges, you're not req'd to continue your previous subTF tactics. you can explore ways to use all your assets differently. if you're no longer having 'happy time' w/ tactics that worked well in the previous game-year, ain't it down to you to revise your deployments to counter or avoid the enemy's new-found strength? don't continue to use old methods in the face of high losses, try something else.




aoffen -> RE: Total Fail (3/7/2012 12:58:09 AM)

All of that is true, but I think the beef is more about the a-historical nature of the problem.
Regards
Andrew




jmalter -> RE: Total Fail (3/7/2012 4:37:40 AM)

no doubt, but this is an a-historical game. where if my subs were getting clammered for 3-4 weeks straight, it might eventually drill thru that, 'hey, i'm getting creamed here'. and 'mebbe i should withdraw/re-think/re-organize'. but no, the OP would rather "sit while my subs undergo round after endless round of depth charging".

srsly, if under threat, will you let a major component of your fleet get ruined, w/o trying to figure out a counter-tactic, or at least by getting out of the way of stuff that's causing you major hurt?

i've no call to beat on the OP, his game-experience likely outweighs mine. but jeez-louise, mebbe he could try & do something? 'cos just posting a moan about how he got raped by the super-Es ain't gonna draw much sympathy.




John 3rd -> RE: Total Fail (3/7/2012 5:23:22 AM)

I've always considered ASW too dangerous/effective. This was one of the chief reasons we shifted Reluctant Admiral over to Da Babes format. MUCHO Better!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625