juliet7bravo
Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline
|
"Hi, I think the "check for torpedo" like the 2000lb AP bomb is good for WITP"
So far so good...
but for WITP II I think nothing less then a complete ammo production and location system will solve all our problems.
In a strategic/operational level game you want to track 6.5mm rounds? Can we trade out some of the other trivial micro-managment tasks for it?
"First we always compare game results to history even when we do not require the forces involved to match (just the results). Second we try to over lay historic results to game results even when the Conduct of War does not match."
No Mogami, all most of us have been talking about is capabilities and how realistic capabilities could or should be reflected or modeled in game. WitP development seems to have work in reverse order for almost any issue...you decided what in-game results you wanted and worked backwards from there, realism be damned. Then papered over the cracks with bondo and bandaids and ending up with everything skewed beyond recognition. The unrestricted use of an infinite supply of torps is an example of an "unrealistic capability".
You're the one who keeps trying to twist the two together and/or play them off each other depending on which way the argument is going. If we talk history, you want to talk game. If we say "sure, no problem, lets talk game", you want to talk history. We pick your PM example apart, and you want to re-direct to India.
At some point, realism, realistic capabilities, and "in-game performance" need to intersect. Your contention appears to be that there is apparently no way this can happen since it's impossible to recreate history in game. The problem with this is that we ain't trying to recreate history, we're trying to re-fight the war using historical capabilities and arrive at a different conclusion.
"The only way to remove all doubt would be to track where a torpedo was and if an aircraft capable of loading it was also there with a pilot trained to make torpedo attacks"
AS have been offered here repeatedly, Rabaul launched air raids against PM (and alot of other places) throughout 1942-mid 1943 using the Betty. In Feb '42 they lost 17 Betties attacking (with torps) ENTERPRISE. They lost a bunch more doing torp attacks at Lunga Roads. They lost alot of Betties doing torp attacks from Rabaul until they mostly gave it up as a lost cause. This is an indicator that they (1) Had Betties at Rabaul, (2) Had torpedoes, and (3) Had pilots trained in torp attacks. Or at least they did till they all died making torp attacks.
Still weren't any torp attacks on, at, or around PM, if that's the example you want to use.
"There are AAR produced by WITP where not a single attack by Japan is made against an Allied ship at Port Moresby. (torpedo or bomb) (read Mogami-Brady)
why? because the war never took hold around Rabaul. It was fought around timor and then Tarawa/Baker Island. The Allies captured Rabaul et al because Japan never devoted any forces to them. (I was commited else where)"
Isn't this exactly what you're complaining of? But since you do, you're going to use an empty base as an example of "no attacks on shipping at PM" as an equivalent to "no attacks on shipping at PM" in real life where there were plenty of AC at Rabaul and they made over 120 air raids? Or as an example to justify the mass slaughter in-game of Allied shipping at PM, even with CAP present? Which is it?
"Since there were no Japanese bombers there were 0 attacks. And since Brady knew where the long range Japanese aircraft were deployed he didn't lose AK to them.
*(without sailing directly into them without cover)"
No wonder people are asking for a "direction indicator" for the TF icons, it makes alot more sense now.
Your original contention was that restricting torp use would cause the world to end, since knocking the crap out of shipping at PM was all that kept Rabaul from getting steamrollered by the ungodly Allied hordes. So how does this have anything to do with the subject? No AC= no attacks.
"in Aug in Solomons the Japanese tended to attack at night (and they scored hits on at least 4 USN warships with torpedos at night)"
As has been pointed out, they switched to night torp armed intruder flights because they were getting slaughtered during the day. Belated survival instincts kicking in.
If there had been 0 torpedo attacks in war I would not agree that in WITP there could not be 2000 The only limit I would agree to would be numbers of available torpedos.
If you have the capability, have at it. As long as you don't tweak the AC and torp stats to make them successful in ahistoric circumstances. Tweaking things on the fly is part of what led to the current mess with everything whopperjawed out of shape. Then again, we have AC flying torp missions that never flew one in real life, that's a "zero" in my book. Same goes for Apollo's (?) example, of people unloading a gazillion carrier torp bombers on a rock and launching "Torpedo DeathStars"...having to ship the torps and torp maintenance units there would mostly put an end to that.
"perhaps in WITP II we need to actually make Japan pay for production beyond the requirments of material (resources) and capacity (factory size) I think this would limit production more then any other single change we could introduce"
"Minister of Finance" is really getting far afield of any concievable player role in the game. Not to mention one of the advantages of being a fascist, militaristic country is that you can peg your currency wherever you want it, for at least awhile. And inflation, as you might expect, was astronomical in wartime Japan. For the USA, there is no realistic cap.
Probably the FIRST task for WitP2 should be identifying and outlining the players role.
"Another limit I think we should examine is set an upper limit on torpedo attacks (number of torpedos) and subtract from this total before each launch. The more torpedo missions flown the less chance the next mission will carry torpedos. (divide Japanese production totals by year by 12 and use this number to modify the roll )"
This would completely negate the point. You'd still have effectively unlimited torps at the "point of impact". Why have fancy modifiers and jibberjabber when we know exactly what was produced? Produce them and take them where they're needed...it worked in "real life".
"(I still think that 358 missions flown by full 27 aircraft Daitai is quite a bit more then I see in WITP and that is the number the production totals quoted could produce) There is no doubt that Japan never actually launched 358 full daitai torpedo strikes in entire course of war. )"
Again, torps expended in training, torps destroyed, captured, on the bottom of the ocean ect. Not to mention torps stockpiled in the rear, the torps stockpiled at major bases, and torps at forward bases. Point being, if they ain't where they're needed, they ain't doing you any good.
"another check for Land based 2e bombers could be the "AA"check the Japanese will not launch a day time attack if enemy AA number is over a certain amount. (to encourage the historic night time attack) just as CAP check does not bother with quaility of fighters just their number the AA check will not check the skill of AA crews just the total fire."
All this kind of "won't fly" BS checks does is create heartburn and confusion. How the ^&%$! does the aircrews know how many planes are flying CAP or how many AA guns there are until we go find out? Then THEY know, but I (the player) DOES NOT. Isn't this exactly WHY we fly recon missions? Why not follow the dang orders and abort if things are too hot? Or drop the bombs in the bay and THEN run for home? That would be...realistic. Saying "F*ck no, I won't go" isn't.
To use the previously mentioned Betty torp attack on LEXINGTON as one example (of many), where they got slaughtered, this would be impossible to replicate in-game...since they'd refuse to fly. Same goes for numerous other attacks, both Allied and Japanese, in the SWPAC area. For that matter, how many Japanese air units refused to fly IRL, no matter how crappy the odds? Wouldn't the ability to "run like rabbits" be somewhat of an ahistorical capability for the Japanese? How many Japanese air units flew to certain death? It's the air war equivalent of Japanese ground units not surrendering, and I've never heard anyone complain about that...
If anything, there should be a way of intentionally launching limited strikes of 1-6 AC against a target.
NOTE:
One glaring possible self-limitation on the use of air-dropped torps by the Japanese. Anyone notice that the majority of the torp attacks we've noted appear to have been against; (1) capital ships, (2) invasion fleets, or (3) when the AC was probably originally loaded out for one or the other?
< Message edited by juliet7bravo -- 4/30/2006 10:09:00 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based ... - 
I really can't swallow that though. It's somehow easier to be skeptical of the Japanese SSN, and etc. 
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