Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Nuclear Subs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Nuclear Subs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:29:46 AM   
joey


Posts: 1020
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline
In my current game, both are lethal. Even without reaching 1943, US subs are devestating with on average 3 kills a day. Individual IJN subs are picking off a ship off the coast of the US at a rate of one every third day. There are on average 3 subs there, that I know of, everyday. That is a kill rate of at least one per day. But by comparison, this is small change compared to the devestation racked up by the KB.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 31
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:31:11 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
Well I can't say that in my game. I had 3 CV's hit, 1 CVE sunk, 3 BB's lost CA's, CL's DD's hit and sunk and a ton of other ships hit and sunk. Depends on how your opponent uses them.


I've protected the ships, employed hunter killer groups and used air assets.

Once again I don't blame my opponent for doing so either.

Are you playing a PBEM game?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 32
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:39:08 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
After 1943 Allied subs are doing better and have finally become a threat in my game. Before 1943 they are not much of a threat and useful as scouts, but little yet-that's with historical allied torps turned on-so that doesn't surprise me.

So far aside from a couple of bomb hits from SBDs-and a hit rate of less that 2%, the only damage to KB has been from allied subs after 1943. 2 carriers were hit by allied subs. Before 1943 I had a couple of occasions-at least 2 and possibly 3 times where faulty torpedoes failed to detonate when they struck IJN subs.

The lack of allied carrier based air effectiveness and improving allied subs after 1943 leads to a situation where you avoid engaging KB with your carriers and use them as bait to lure KB into striking range of your subs.

(in reply to joey)
Post #: 33
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 3:49:07 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Allied subs are going to be hampered if you set them to historical by faulty torpedoes. Since we use that I can't really make any comparisons. Its mid 1943 in my game and IJN subs are still a very major threat and will still easily hit a CV that is screened by 15+ DD's and seperate ASW hunter killer groups. The Wasp is being repaired for that reason. I had the Hornet get torpedoed just outside Pearl Harbor in 1942 and she had over 15 DD's screening her. Had seperate ASW groups around and B-17s and other planes on ASW duty. Lost a CVE of the West Coast and a BB too. The USS Washington got sunk near Pearl in Mid 43.

The Brits in the Indian Ocean have also taken serious losses to subs.

All I can say at this point is from 1941 to mid 1943 IJN subs are very brutal and if you use historical USN trops and no historical IJN sub doctrine just be prepared. Combined with the China situation and the obvious IJN carrier advantage, its going to be very tough sledding for the allieds. Until I see what transpires after mid 43 I can't really say, but the reported Kamakazie situation also has me concerned.

At the beginning of the war I devoted over 50% of my air assets to ASW work-same goes for DD's and SC's.

I certainly don't fault my opponent for being aggressive with his subs either.





(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 34
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 4:09:47 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6291
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 35
Submarines - 12/11/2009 4:10:01 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10403
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
In my game not only are Allied submarines sinking multiple ships on most turns (and yes we are using the historical "poor" USN torpedos) but we have house rules against both air ASW and ship ASW missions - none are allowed for either side prior to 1944. This might partly explain why Allied submarines are so powerful - but it doesn't help explain why IJN submarines have been almost completely ineffective - other than the lucky hits on Yorktown - which was more due to Nik's judicious placement of the assets than any other single factor.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 36
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 4:10:55 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10403
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)


We tweaked submarine and ASW interactions in both patch 01 and patch 02.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 37
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 4:20:57 AM   
joey


Posts: 1020
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Have things changed in the various patches, or is just the variabilities in the game.

On release, I had a lot of trouble with IJN subs off the west coast of the USA & East coast of Australia right around to the Bass Strait.
had a lot of ASW TF on their backs butthey still sank more than IRL (merchants)

After the beta patch, and same game continued with the official patch, I have had a lot less trouble, and due to previous experience I have the same number of ASW TF's there. I have had an attack about 100m off British Columbia but not much else.
(Maybe Andy sent them off to blockade Diego Garcia?)


We tweaked submarine and ASW interactions in both patch 01 and patch 02.


In what way?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 38
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 4:53:32 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10370
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

How many Japanese submarines were sunk by US asw efforts?

Perhaps part of the reason not a lot of US DDs were sunk in WWII was a result of the Japanese doctrine.


The US had many ASW TFs in the Atlantic. As soon as enough CVEs were available to escort convoys with a few left over, they formed hunter/killer groups with a CVE to do mobile air ASW connected with ASW surface units. These task forces scoured the Atlantic for u-boats and had a lot of successes. I don't know of a single US DD that was sunk in these efforts, though I know at least one CVE and possibly more were sunk by u-boats during these operations.

In the Pacific, the IJN had a different sub doctrine that didn't put their subs in the same situations the u-boats were in. The primary role for the I-boats early war was to go out ahead of the main fleet to cripple Allied warships before a decisive battle. The only time this worked was when the I-19 torpedoed the Wasp, North Carolina, and O'Brien in what was probably the most successful torpedo spread of the war. 6 torpedoes, 6 hits, 2 ships sunk.

As the Japanese went on the defensive, their submarines were more and more often dedicated to supply missions for isolated garrisons. An unintended bonus to the strategy of bypassing occupied islands. A large number of Japanese subs sunk were on these supply missions as local ASW assets around the isolated islands caught the subs near their destination.

US DDs were not sunk by Japanese subs because the two rarely encountered one another. US subs were conducting an anti-merchant ship campaign similar to the Germans on the other side of the world and they had a lot more contact with Japanese ASW ships and sank a few here and there.

One issue is that while the US usually conducts a similar sub campaign to the real war, the Japanese player (and the AI) usually conducts a different campaign from what happened historically. So Allied ASW efforts in game have little to compare to historically and there is a wide range for debate.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 39
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 5:11:52 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18493
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Japanese subs shouldn't be able to operate with relative impunity close to major Allied bases that have both air patrol ASW and ASW TFs. 

That's the problem that I'm finding in my game.  The problem then goes one step further in that those subs are also clobbering ASW-dedicated DDs.  This never happened in the war and shouldn't be happening in the game.  There should be exceptions, of course, but what I'm seeing is wholesale slaughter of ASW DDs.

Look at it from another standpoint.  I have done everything possible in the game to halt these attacks.  For each of my major bases I have ASW air patrols and at least one (sometimes five or six) ASW TFs patroling the waters.  Most of these TFs have high experience commanders.  I've done everything possible to prevent these attacks, but instead of nullifying submarines they have become lethal to ASW assets.

Over the past ten weeks of game time (from July 1 to October 19, 1942) I have lost six DDs, five AMs, and one each KV, YP, SC, and AVP that were in ASW-dediated TFs.  Most of these have been within a single hex of the base with the ASW air patrols.  I've tied up a large percentage of my DDs in ASW patrols to no effect other than losing DDs in numbers that are ridiculous.

When one side is able to accomplish decidedly non-historic things over a long period of time and the other side is powerless to stop it or at least counter it, you have a problem.

This is a problem.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 40
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 7:31:48 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6291
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Planning the end of the world, well out to 2023!
Status: offline
A problem could be that the US DD's are equipped to operate against the historical IJN sub threat, had the ahistorical threat which surfaces in AE arrived, maybe more DD's would have been better equipped like the RN DD's.

Maybe make a DD upgrade where they drop a few 5" guns and get sonar & depth charges. Give the player a choice of what flavour DD he wants.

(This ahistorical threat v historcal production hits a few other areas too.)


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 41
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 8:06:04 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10370
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I think US DDs were pretty much equipped similarly between the Pacific and Atlantic, though the Atlantic DDs probably had priority for new ASW equipment.  When the war started, the US was way behind the RN in ASW, both equipment and tactics.  As time went on, they learned from their ally and got just as good at ASW as the British.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 42
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 8:58:47 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
Canoerebel,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Not sure how somebody can "just be good at it." All you can really do is assign a good commander to your subs and send them on their merry way. The fact that those subs can do the things they're doing in our games is just whacky.


This is something I am not sure about. If I compare what my subs do/did in the PI region to what others report in this thread, I guess I am bad at positioning my subs (I do not get those multiple sightings/attacks per turn from my Allied subs), i.e. at analyzing likely shipping lanes or my opponent is good at moving his TFs around the correctly identified likely interception regions, which is possible using the new waypoint system, but admittedly difficult for coastal bases (as opposed to island bases) in view of the reaction settings.

Perhaps one should consider a HR limiting the reaction setting for subs that are closer than X hexes to an enemy base.

Against the "point interception" at the target base, I have learned the hard way that mines inside the port are likely to be hit by subs. So there's a tool against that. My opponent just learned the taste of that medicine as well.

Hartwig

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 43
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 9:09:24 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
That is because not only are we land Gods Of War (TM) we are sub Gods of War (TM)


My wife says I have the body of a god....

Buddha!

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

IJN subs are brutal. In my PBEM games they very effective and a real nuisance. I've lost BB's, CVE's and had CV's hit and lost a lot of other ships CA, CL, DD, and loads of transports to them. Early war allied ASW is very ineffective-save for a few British DD's. Over time allied ASW improves, but still IJN subs do seem to be a bit over powered, IMO.

and yes I dedicated a lot of resources to ASW work-both air assets and DD's and SC's when they became available.


IJN submarines in my game are worthless - except as targets - on the other hand Allied submarines are sinking mutiple ships per turn !


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 44
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 9:10:23 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7009
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel/Bulgaria
Status: offline
My pet peeve is, that while IJN subs are allowed to operate ahistorically, allied air ASW has been "nerfed" to be mere "spectators". In my Scen 6 game against Japanese AI, my aircraft managed to sink whopping total of 4 IJN subs from Dec 41 to March 44.

In Atlantic, aircrafts netted about 50% of sunk subs and in Pacific there was still 18 IJN subs sunk by aircrafts when IJN subs were operating historically. So, I have basically come to conclusion that ASW mission is rather useless to aircrafts. I have had literally thousands of ops report "hits", but results are abysmal. Considering Ops losses to aircraft (especially when flying low for ASW, 1-2k ft), air ASW just doesn't do much compared to losses and effort.

I have had hundreds and hundreds of planes in PH and West Coast dedicated to ASW patrolling for over 3 years... I don't know how many ships were saved by "keeping the subs heads down", but considering ops losses and reduced range, there does not seem to be much point for ASW mission. Naval Search seems to be way to go, same as with WitP, where Air ASW mission was also quite useless, barring few special cases.

Which is why I am bit dissapointed, since I thought ASW mission would be bit more useful in AE.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 45
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 9:12:07 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
I think mostly as you guys are being a bit predictable, and we are doing things a bit differently.

If you see a sub, go somewhere else.

If your subs aren't getting contacts, then they are in the wrong place, so move them!

And put them on max react, that helps :)

Even one escort really helps and keeps the subs away.

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In my game not only are Allied submarines sinking multiple ships on most turns (and yes we are using the historical "poor" USN torpedos) but we have house rules against both air ASW and ship ASW missions - none are allowed for either side prior to 1944. This might partly explain why Allied submarines are so powerful - but it doesn't help explain why IJN submarines have been almost completely ineffective - other than the lucky hits on Yorktown - which was more due to Nik's judicious placement of the assets than any other single factor.


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 46
RE: Nuclear Subs - 12/11/2009 9:36:26 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
Canoerebel,

a second comment :

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
When one side is able to accomplish decidedly non-historic things over a long period of time and the other side is powerless to stop it or at least counter it, you have a problem.

This is a problem.


First of all, I should stress that I am a member (perhaps the only member, but it just feels good to assume there are others who think like I do) of the who-cares-about-history-this-is-a-game-and-not-a-simulation faction in these forums. I look at this pretty much from a very abstract point of view: I am thrown into a world in which things work according to a certain set of rules, and I try to do as well as these rules allow by adjusting the approach I chose accordingly. This can be necessary in history as well: If I'm Germany in 1941 and invading the SU, I can't say I got tons of 37mm PAKs (anti-tank guns) in my OOB, thus I need to be able to kill the enemy KV tanks, but I have to adapt my strategy accordingly. If I figure out that enemy fighters take too much of a toll from my bombers, maybe it's a good idea to destroy the fuel plants...

For this reason, I don't think if one side can do things without the other side being able to counter this is a problem. It can even provide a special challenge and be very interesting. Did you ever try playing Japan in the WitP Marianas scenario PBEM against a capable human opponent ? That is quite an interesting (frustrating) experience... but even there it may be possible to run a successful op or two before your bolt is shot, if you choose/design the op accordingly.

For me, a problem starts showing when you realize you can't do anything in any area, even if you think out of the box (hey, perhaps I could use a big AAA gun against a tank...).

In the situation you (we) are in, you can stop escort/ASW ship losses - by not escorting/not setting up ASW TFs. You will lose more AKs/APs including their load given the increased likelihood for interception by subs, but if you believe that you can put the ships you use for ASW to better use in other ways and prefer to take those losses, there's nothing that actually stops you from doing so if you think it's the better strategy. Who cares if it was done historically or not ?

Just my 2cts, others may have radically different, well-justified opinions.

Hartwig

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 47
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 9:40:26 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline
jrcar,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

If you see a sub, go somewhere else.

If your subs aren't getting contacts, then they are in the wrong place, so move them!

And put them on max react, that helps :)

Even one escort really helps and keeps the subs away.

Cheers

Rob


IMHO, this is an excellent summary how to run the sub war!

Hartwig

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 48
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 10:35:55 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
I've been following your AAR and must say that what is happening doesn't look right. On the other hand, in my AAR several DD (5 or 6 attacks so far, maybe Lemon can confirm) have been attacked by subs and none have been able to score hits, probably more like it should be. I must note that these attacks were mailny by either Dutch or S-boats, so they probably have lower crew ratings and the boats themselves are probably rate worse as well.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 49
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 12:00:37 PM   
moose1999

 

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline
IJN subs in my game as Allied against the AI have not performed unrealistically well.
I have to be careful and I have to be over them all the time and use air ASW extensively, but doing this I'm able to rein them in.
They do get a ship from time to time, but nothing over the top.

My own subs, on the other hand, I found were so effective it just wasn't funny.
It threatened to ruin the game, actually.
I chose to let the computer take over sub operations to make them a little less effective.
And that worked nicely as the computer is a lot less aggressive with the subs than I was.


_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 50
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 12:19:03 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2186
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: online
Hello, I'd like to give the view from the other side of the fence.

Dan is quite correct, the results of my subs is way above what they ever achieved in real life. But then again, is that not the same for a lot of IJN assets? The KB is far superior to the US CVs before 43, Betty & Nell performance is better (although not as silly as in WITP), Artillery etc.....the Allies get some advantages as well but I wont go into them as I dont want to start a "Fanboy" argument.

At least he is sinking some of my subs, I have lost 20 fleet boats and we are not out of 1942 yet.......but its better to use them aggressively now rather then have them be sitting ducks later in the game. Once US torps come online in 43 its going to be messy for the IJN player, thats for sure. I dont even bother running ASW's at the moment, their DC's are so weak it is worthless spending the time moving them each turn. I have no doubt if I were to leave my subs hovering around Dan's bases in late 43 they will die like flies.

And as he mentioned, I have lost 3 DDs myself to subs sitting in the same base hex in the space of 10 days, so it is cutting both ways....

At the end of the day its a game, if you want it to play out exactly like the real war every Jap player will quit at the end of 1942.

(in reply to moose1999)
Post #: 51
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 4:39:32 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline
I've got 14 Fleet Boats off the southern coast of Japan. Every turn there are at least three hexes with both ships and subs in them. It is 8/42 and all the subs have been upgraded. There have been a number of ASW attacks that have all missed but there hasn't been one sub vs anything attack since I've patched (about 30 game days). Prior to the patch my boats were making attacks (mostly ineffective due to poor torps). I had also put most of my aggresssive skippers in these subs but have not had any success. My only conclusion is that they have been spotted by IJN aircraft and that has meant they can't attack.

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 52
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 4:59:23 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25388
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Yes....heavy air asw will suppress subs in their ability to attack.



_____________________________


(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 53
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:01:31 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
You're not always going to have the luxury of "going somewhere else" to avoid subs. Battles often revolve around key areas and you must transit them.

I have my ASW reaction set to 6.

The biggest problem with allied subs is the torpedoes, not where they patrol. Once again since I'm playing with historical allied torpedoes on that's to be expected.

Like OP said, my opponent too has admitted he went overboard with IJN subs. He too wanted to use them as much as possible and as aggressively as possible early on. When your opponent has many wolfpacks in certain areas allied ASW-especially early on you will not get them all, in fact they will likely get few kills or even contacts and yes, your ASW ships will suffer losses, sometime very heavy losses.

The lack of persistance on part of the inexperienced American captains and low depth charge loads on ASW ships early on is a real disadvantage. For those reasons alone I was forced to rely on British DD's as their ASW ratings, ASW weapons loadouts and persistent captains made them valuable in ASW work.

I also know my opponent was spending PP's to give his subs better and more aggressive commanders. Some of those bastards were really a pain in the butt. Hopefully they are now sitting on the ocean floor in their iron coffins.

Once again no flame against my opponent. He's doing what he should be doing-finding any advantage and taking advantage of it.

It just, right now its turning into a war of subs-especially now that my allied subs are getting torpedoes that go boom 40% of the time and the only thing that has dinged KB has been my subs after 43. Before 43 they had many opportunities, but the dud torpedoes simply did nothing more than knock the barnicles off his carriers.

< Message edited by sfbaytf -- 12/11/2009 5:03:46 PM >

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 54
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:30:21 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline
Allied air ASW needs to be more effective at sinking subs. We have Jap subs sinking destroyers, and operating near allied bases with no fear of air attack.
The situation in the game is like the atlantic theater, because there is no jap sub doctrine; but the game doesnt let us counter the jap sub threat like the allies did in the atlantic.
German subs FEARED allied aircraft for good reason. They operated in areas of the Atlantic where land based aircraft were out of range.

AE needs to have better air ASW to counter and balance the effect of no Jap sub doctrine.

Jap subs should fear allied aircraft and ASW task forces hunting them! Instead we have Jap subs operating with near impunity.

< Message edited by Admiral Scott -- 12/11/2009 5:33:52 PM >

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 55
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:32:32 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18493
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
We've played another two-day turn.  I-33 is lurking at Channel Islands near Los Angeles.  I have ten aircraft squadrons on ASW duty (mostly Kingfishers, some dive bombers, and a few Bolos).  I have six ASW TFs operating in those waters.  I-33 got an ASW AVD on the 17th, an ASW PC on the 19th, and a TK on the 10th.  Two ASW craft and a big tanker in three days - right near the heaviest concentration of ASW ships and aircraft in the game. [Edited to add: and their wasn't a single ASW attack on I-33.]

This kind of thing could happen in the war - maybe.  But it's happening frequently in my game.  More than frequently now - often.

Miller is right about game balance - it's no fun to play if nobody has the capability of doing new and whacky things that couldn't have been done in the war.

The trouble with Nuclear Subs, though, is that the subs are vastly more successful and elusive in the game than they were in the real war.  Come 1943, that's going to bother the Japanese player as much as it does the Allied player in 1942. 

Based upon what I've seen, I promise you that there is going to be a tremendous hugh-and-cry to tone down subs in the game, and rightly so.  You've got to be able to move ships and ASW has to be somewhat effective in suppressing submarines.  Both sides have a vested interest in some kind of balance in this regard.

Right now there is no way for me to counter the Nuclear Submarine feature in the game.  Some suggestions have been offered - my favorite being to shut down all my ASW. That suggestion goes a long way to proving my point.  If you can't even use ASW in the game, something is wrong.

I don't want to go into more detail in here since my opponent is reading this thread, but see my AAR ("Shattered Vow") for more information about the extent of the submarine carnage and some of the steps I've taken to try to meet it (unsuccessfully).

You've got to have balance to have an enjoyable war game.  When players have no way of countering a devastating enemy tactic, there's an unsatisfying imbalance.  This will have to be addressed.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/11/2009 5:38:54 PM >

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 56
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:41:02 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24825
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Canoerebel,

Can you please provide more details regarding your ASW aircraft settings around the Southern CA area: numbers of aircraft, patrol zone, air support, leader ratings, airframe, pilot skill, ASW pilot skill, altitude of operation, range, fatigue levels, morale, default weapon loadout for the airframe, etc.

It would be helpful to have a feel for this in order to dissect out any possible problems with your airborne ASW setting. Without having a better feel for these settings, it is difficult for us to make any recommendations.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 57
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:44:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18493
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Canoerebel,
Can you please provide more details regarding your ASW aircraft settings around the Southern CA area: numbers of aircraft, patrol zone, air support, leader ratings, airframe, pilot skill, ASW pilot skill, altitude of operation, range, fatigue levels, morale, default weapon loadout for the airframe, etc.

It would be helpful to have a feel for this in order to dissect out any possible problems with your airborne ASW setting. Without having a better feel for these settings, it is difficult for us to make any recommendations.


Yikes, is there anything else I can get you while I begin compiling that information? If not, I'll see you in a week or two.

I'll get you some of this info later today, but please note that my main concern isn't the ineffectiveness of ASW air patrols and ASW ships, my main concerns are the ability of Japanese subs to sink Allied ASW ships and the ability of Japanese subs to lurk around major bases with near impunity.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 58
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:50:14 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 987
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
"You've got to have balance to bave an enjoyable war game.  When players have no way of countering a devastating enemy tactic, there's an unsatisfying imbalance"

I feel the same way about bombardments. Some have said it will balance out later on in the war when the allieds are on the offensive. Personally as the allieds I don't want to have my massive naval, air and land bombardments wipe out or render the IJA impotent and be able to just walk in and take places. We all know that historically that was not the case.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 59
RE: Submarines - 12/11/2009 5:51:01 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 18493
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Exactly.

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Nuclear Subs Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.162