This thread had dropped into the nether regions of something like page ten, but it's time to bring it back the forum's attention.
The thrust of this thread is that submarines are too powerful in the game - a problem that cuts both ways; IE, it affects both sides roughly equally over the long haul. Early in the war it doesn't affect the Japanese as much since a high percentage of Allied torpedoes are duds.
In my PBEM game with Miller, we're now in January 1943, so the dud rate has fallen...and, as expected, the sub war has become even more bloody.
On January 22, 1943, I-34 sank an AKL near Saumlaki, Seal got an xAK off Shortlands, Salmon got an xAK in Kendari, I-8 got two docked tankers at Karachi (yes, two...docked...tankers...in a major port patrolled by ASW), and Gugeon got an AK off Munda.
Six ships went under in a single day...and this is not an isolated occurrence. Sub-warfare in AE is far, far too effective.
The attacking of docked ships is particularly ridiculous, especially in big ports (Karachi, for heaven's sake!) patrolled by ASW TFs and ASW air. This is not an isolated occurrence as I've lost scores of docked ships at my biggest ports during the game.
Since Nuclear Subs appears to cut both ways it doesn't necessarily need fixing to address game balance; but it sure detracts from the historical feel of the game. In the real war, sub warfare was a cat-and-mouse game. In my AE PBEM game, sub warfare is just a big, bad gorilla blundering from major port to major port tearing apart everything encountered.
Am I the only one who is finding sub warfare so ridiculously bloody? It's possible, I suppose.
The figures you describe are not ahistoric from the USN side at all. JANAC figures (generally considered pretty conservative versus war patrol claims) show USN subs sinking 1314 vessels, merchant and naval, during the war. Divide by number of days, reduce a lot for 1942 duds, and 1945's lack of targets, and you SHOULD be seeing several sinkings per day on average in 1943-1944.
The real issue, I think, is the IJN results. In both our games their totals are far higher than hisotrical. I think that's an artifact of shared code more than any desire to hose the Allied player. There has been a lot of discussion about removal of the "Japanese Sub Doctrine" toggle from WITP, and good arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. Yes, they had somewhat of a doctrine to favor attacks on warships and to husband torpedoes. No, they didn't aggressively operate off the West Coast deep into the war years. But I also think that the Japanese player can continue to make deployment decisions to somewhat reproduce historical operations simply by choosing where he sends his boats. OTOH, if he sends them up to the CONUS coast he's going to take losses, or at least heavy damage, if the Allied player does his job, particularly in the area of upgrades. As you move forward in mid-Pac you'll also relieve him of advance bases and force his fuel budget back at least to Truk. The West Coast is relatively quiet once you do that.
I don't think the code allows for parallel submarine algorithms at this point without major surgery. I would strenuously argue against "dumbing down" Allied sub results, however. As the links above show, the submarine effort was preeminent in defeating Japan. WITP, GG's love-fest for the flyers, never allowed this. The AE devs have come a long way toward righting that wrong, and I think perhaps some of the objections to game results stem from some players' lack of knowledge of the submarine war's outcomes. Read the paper at the second link above. It's official USN history, and chock full of stats. As Nimitz himself said, the subs won the war.
As the Allied player, you can stand the losses you're getting. He can't. Keep plugging away in 1943, both offensively and ASW-wise. You can't win AE with air power alone. Cut off his oil, and sooner or later even his subs will be staying home.
< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 1/6/2010 11:59:32 PM >