|
Yeah in the actual war the Allies just neutralized the air base and bypassed the <100k troops defending the place because gently caress that.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
But... The points and the prestige! I still can't believe the Allies abandoned Rangoon in this game, that was a gift that made up for them holding on to Singapore like it was Monte Cassino.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
I thought Rabaul would have been easy since I was a year ahead of schedule. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Not to sound glib but use your recon yo
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Bombard it with the big boats. This is a plan that cannot go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
   We continue to defend Akyab.  They have a lot more planes though.   We keep up the bombing runs.  Okay, you guys know how anti-submarine warfare works right? Right?  A few more days here, they are failing fast.   Things are slow, but going our way.  Sigh.   Our scores are picking up, but without the AI throwing any valuable ships my way, we're never going to reach the score of last game.  I'm still behind in bases controlled, but at least we have more than they do now.  Base points is actually somewhere I'm catching up.  Aircraft losses are much lower this time, but the difference is about the same in both games.  This was apparently the month I took heavy ground losses in the last game, but I'm still doing more damage while taking less in the way of losses – so it's all good!  The AI is also doing a much better hob at hiding its shipping – but this has been a bad month for me, I've lost a total of 44 ships this month. Then again, I've sunk 61 Allied ships, so its still in my favour. Until the Liberty ships start rolling off the lines....  No large naval battled mean this is a much lower graph as well. The Allies need to get their asses – and carriers – into gear!  Most of this months advances have been in Burma and cleaning up in China and Java.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
No, Grey, I do not think your DDs know how ASW works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Is there an ASW toggle someplace you need to hit to make them do their jobs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
What's your plan after Soerabaja? New Caledonia? Fiji? Alaska? Hawaii?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:Is there an ASW toggle someplace you need to hit to make them do their jobs? You have to set them up for an ASW combat patrol when making a new task force, which they should be since it was an ASW combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:You have to set them up for an ASW combat patrol when making a new task force, which they should be since it was an ASW combat. What about escort ASW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:What about escort ASW? Not sure about that, tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if you had to set them as an ASW Combat patrol with a 0-hex distance to properly have them do that, rather than just be reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Anyone not familiar with these games might read this LP and think "Another submarine kill? That's our Grey Hunter  ", but no, this game is so incalculably obtuse you can really only attribute 10% of whatever goes wrong to the player messing up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Is it me or is Grey relatively close to occupying all of China that matters?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:Is it me or is Grey relatively close to occupying all of China that matters? Well, there's that huge portion of desert-ish terrain that I believe is part of China. If he can get to the mountains between India/Burma and China, that should be the deathblow against China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:You have to set them up for an ASW combat patrol when making a new task force, which they should be since it was an ASW combat.  Why does the interface suck so much? What's next, the default settings for battleships task forces is "don't bother with guns, ramming speed ahoy"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Omobono posted:
Well, that depends on what you set them to and any number of variables like the commander's stats, time of day, ammo availability... Interestingly, and according to the manual, the ASW task force is limited to 4 ships, have a higher chance at detecting subs, and have a higher chance at shooting first in combat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
...It doesn't help that DD Shirayuki has no ASW capabilities as it does not carry any depth charges. That is, of course, unless he upgraded it, but I don't think Grey's mentioned anything about upgrading ships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Omobono posted:
You're misunderstanding, all craft with anti-sub cabilities will perform anti-sub duties. Ships specifically in ASW task forces (an assignment given to a group of ships like air combat or bombardment) will do that job better than say, a destroyer escorting a combat task force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
"You see, submarines have a preset torpedo limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own ships at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Kifu, show them the medal I won." Interesting that both sides' scores are lower this time around. I suppose that reflects the lower intensity of the naval and air war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:...It doesn't help that DD Shirayuki has no ASW capabilities as it does not carry any depth charges. Wait, what? Shirayuki is a Fubuki-class, and they certainly should be carrying some. Surviving ones were modified late in the war to carry more, but even at the start their stock armament should consist of depth charges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Wait, what? Shirayuki is a Fubuki-class, and they certainly should be carrying some. Surviving ones were modified late in the war to carry more, but even at the start their stock armament should consist of depth charges. According to the game (and I don't have access to my books at the moment) the first batch of 10 Fubuki-class destroyers, named Fubuki(I) in-game, do not have depth charges.   The Fubuki(I)-class of destroyers consists of: Fubuki Shirayuki Hatsuyuki Miyuki (Not in game, due to being lost in 1934 after a collision) Murakumo Shinonome Usugumo Shirakumo Isonami Uranami Edit: Checking in-game, none of the above-named ships have DCs Further checking, the 1/42 upgrade for the Fubuki(I)s give them 18 DCs that have [Depth: 164] as a value, and I assume is in feet. The O21-class submarine has a maximum diving depth of 330 feet. Grey will get new DCs in 42/43, depending on ship/class, which should give him an attacking depth of 295 feet. Eventually, he'll get DCs with 476 feet depth. Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jul 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
The Type-95 DC that most IJN ASW relies upon in the early war are basically worthless trash, they couldnt reach deep enough if the allied subs dived past about 200ft and there were further doctrinal problems with setting them too shallow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
The first batch of Fubukis not having depth charges without an upgrade seems really strange. All three preceding classes of destroyers to the Fubuki-class carried them as well, so it's not even a matter of Japan suddenly realizing destroyers should be carrying them or something. I'm actually somewhat suspicious of the game on this point, since looking around I'm generally seeing it stated that they carried 18 stock, with an early war upgrade to 36. Not contesting the general shittiness of their effectiveness or ASW tactics (and May can burn in hell for getting them to somewhat fix this point), as those are well-known - and 18 seems like a pathetic number to carry as well. But them not carrying any seems extremely unusual. Especially since by this point they've been in service for well over 10 years, so there has been plenty of time for upgrades in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
The HDML we overkilled a while back carried 6 depth charges, 18 is pitiful for anything bigger than a sloop. The Flower class frigates a few of us have claimed carry 40 in two racks. The Japanese never get anything like a hedgehog equivalent do they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
  For the love of... This sub is my nemesis atm, I hope those hits are real – and good ones!  We continue to spar in the air.  Today's raid is a good one.  The major port is ours.  We continue to kil Lysanders at a good rate.   The reoccupation force arrives.  Java takes a inevitable hit today.  This at least looks good for the ships sunk tally, if not the points one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
goatface posted:The Japanese never get anything like a hedgehog equivalent do they? Not historically, no. The hedgehog was developed by the British, then shared with/copied by the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Soviets. The Australians adapted it into a land-based weapon that could be attached to tanks, while the Americans later made a rocket version called the mousetrap. It should be noted, the IJN regarded the submarine as a highly dishonorable form of warfare and spent few resources on ASW weapons, equipment, or tactics. They didn't even implement a convoy system until late in the war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
goatface posted:The HDML we overkilled a while back carried 6 depth charges, 18 is pitiful for anything bigger than a sloop. The Flower class frigates a few of us have claimed carry 40 in two racks. Doing some searching on the Fubuki-class destroyers and stats vary wildly on the DC armament. The game states the first 10 had no DCs whatsoever. Others state that the class had 18 DC, while others claim 36. Its clear that the ships would've been upgraded at some point, but I don't know of any books that go through all the ships of a specific time period and lists off all the various changes (although that'd be awesome if their was). Conway's All The World's Ships is somewhat close, but it lacks some detail in some areas, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It should be noted, the IJN regarded the submarine as a highly dishonorable form of warfare and spent few resources on ASW weapons, equipment, or tactics. They didn't even implement a convoy system until late in the war. Why would seeing subs as dishonorable prevent them from developing good ASW? Limiting their own subs, sure, but there's no reason they wouldn't defend against dishonorable weapons. "By leaving ourselves open to sub attacks and restricting our own sub operations, we'll claim the moral high ground! It'll be from the bottom of the sea, but it will be done honorably!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Why would seeing subs as dishonorable prevent them from developing good ASW? Limiting their own subs, sure, but there's no reason they wouldn't defend against dishonorable weapons. People are idiots all over the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Doing some searching on the Fubuki-class destroyers and stats vary wildly on the DC armament. Everything I can find suggests that Fubuki was launched with two depth charge throwers, and two more were installed in 1942. As for the Japanese view of submarines, I can find nothing to support the "submarines are dishonorable, we shall ignore them" idea, not least because Japan entered the war with a submarine fleet to rival the US and German ones. Japan did very little during the early to mid war to protect her merchant fleet from submarines, but this was because the IJN expected nearly all submarine effort to be aimed at Japan's warships instead of commercial traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Why would seeing subs as dishonorable prevent them from developing good ASW? Limiting their own subs, sure, but there's no reason they wouldn't defend against dishonorable weapons. "How could they be so stupid" is like the name of the official Japanese Military Autobiography 1930 - 1945, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
I seem to recall that in-game Japanese ASW actually gets pretty strong later in the war because a ship's ASW capability is based simply on its "anti-submarine" rating. Someone found out that this rating is based simply on the number of ASW weapon mounts a ship has. Doesn't matter if they were the crappy depth charges Japan used or more advanced systems like Hedgehogs, they all count for the same. Some later Japanese DD/E models get a ton of crappy ASW mounts, so they actually become ahistorically effective at their jobs. Did the devs ever change this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:As for the Japanese view of submarines, I can find nothing to support the "submarines are dishonorable, we shall ignore them" idea, not least because Japan entered the war with a submarine fleet to rival the US and German ones. Japan did very little during the early to mid war to protect her merchant fleet from submarines, but this was because the IJN expected nearly all submarine effort to be aimed at Japan's warships instead of commercial traffic. It crops up a couple of times in Shattered Sword. Commerce hunting and interdiction was seen as not being a proper task for a navy, so Japanese submarine development was instead focused on submarines taking part in the IJN's beloved Decisive Battle. IJN doctrine disregarded both protecting their own commerce and attacking the enemy's because the idea of the fleet was to hunt and destroy the enemy fleet. Submarines, like the aircraft carriers, were not regarded as a critical element of IJN doctrine which throughout the pre-war period and in the first couple years of the war was obsessed with Decisive Battle emphasizing the role of big gun warships and destroyer torpedo attack. The IJN's institutional view of submarine warfare seems to have been along the lines of "That's cute, but the purpose of the navy is to destroy the enemy navy. What can submarines meaningfully contribute to that goal?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Are you planning anything special to get back at the Americans for occupying a base right next to the Home Islands, Grey Hunter? The taskforce that hit the base likely came from the Aleutians, are there any bases along the island chain that would be easy to take?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It crops up a couple of times in Shattered Sword. Commerce hunting and interdiction was seen as not being a proper task for a navy, so Japanese submarine development was instead focused on submarines taking part in the IJN's beloved Decisive Battle. IJN doctrine disregarded both protecting their own commerce and attacking the enemy's because the idea of the fleet was to hunt and destroy the enemy fleet. Submarines, like the aircraft carriers, were not regarded as a critical element of IJN doctrine which throughout the pre-war period and in the first couple years of the war was obsessed with Decisive Battle emphasizing the role of big gun warships and destroyer torpedo attack. Right, so basically subs, whether friendly or enemy, were simply beneath the concerns of the glorious Imperial Japanese Navy. A base task better suited for the IJA, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
YeOldeButchere posted:Right, so basically subs, whether friendly or enemy, were simply beneath the concerns of the glorious Imperial Japanese Navy. A base task better suited for the IJA, really. There's an argument to be made that the Japanese disregard of submarine warfare was largely because the IJN's working model of naval warfare was the Mahan school and the IJN's experiences during the Russo-Japanese War. Submarines were not a concern for either. The American and European powers, though, had WW1 fresh in their memory and were intimately familiar with submarine warfare both hunting submarines and operating their own as well as having a healthy appreciation for what submarines could do. Add to that that the submarine was, like the aircraft carrier, a weapon that only come into its own as a fully realized weapon of war and aspect of military operations during WW2. Yamamoto in Japan was popular for his successes, not for his championing of the aircraft carrier. The submarine branch of the IJN had no such political champion. The autobiography of the IJN's doctrinal failures in WW2 can be summarized as "Assumed the Russo-Japanese War, especially the Battle of Tsushima Strait, was an accurate model of future naval warfare and the impact of naval warfare on global geopolitics." The IJN was superbly equipped, trained, and lead to re-fight a modern Tsushima Strait. WW2 was nothing like the Russo-Japanese War, and the IJN's leadership was too conservative and dysfunctional to prevent that sentence from becoming the IJN's epitaph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Hell, the same Mahanian thinking pervaded pre-war USN submarine planning, and is amply demonstrated in the design of all USN submarines from the Salmon-class and on. Submarines were designed to act as scouts, and harassing elements for the battle fleet. It was only the mad scramble in the beginning of the war, and the aforementioned first-hand experience with what commerce raiding is capable of that turned USN submarine doctrine towards attacking merchant shipping as a primary goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Heck, even after WW1, it took the allies a while to remember how to cargo against submarines in the Atlantic. Though nobody did dysfunction like the IJA/IJN. Not even Italy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:52 |
|
|
Veloxyll posted:Though nobody did dysfunction like the IJA/IJN. Not even Italy. That's pretty harsh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:56
|
|