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: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!!

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 12:55:07 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

altering capabilities?

I have seen no evidence that the planes were not capable.


Then give us an example. Anyway, Doolittle used B 25s off a CV but we CAN'T do this, so why be allowed to do something which was NOT done.

This is kinda fun.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/22/2004 6:00:29 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 31
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 12:59:49 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		I see three posters in this thread who have my turn 1 and have not yet sent it back.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 32
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 1:00:51 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I see three posters in this thread who have my turn 1 and have not yet sent it back.


Sorry, I'll get on it.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 33
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 1:02:20 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Pretty sad when a person with 6 PBEM games of WITP is sitting waiting for just one turn to come back. (after 6 hours)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 34
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 1:15:42 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Then give us an example. Anyway, Doolittle used B 25s off a CV but we CAN'T do this, so why be allowed to do something which was NOT done.

This is kinda fun.


I am aware of none. That doesn't mean they couldn't. Thus, thats why i've asked "why not?" The B-25's didn't because the USAAF didn't much pursue the use of torpedoes. They did toy with the idea using B-26's.....the experiment going rather badly at Midway.

This is not the case with the Japanese who embraced LBA torp tactics prewar

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 35
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 1:26:17 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I see three posters in this thread who have my turn 1 and have not yet sent it back.


some of us work day jobs, ya slacker

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 36
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 1:29:39 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		Tell 'em Nikkie!!!!!!

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 37
Wobbly throws a wobbly! - 4/23/2004 1:54:46 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		Fantastic – the two dingos are at it again. I have been waiting for you two to have another crack at each other. Keep the results and the banter coming – I’ll try and add a few rude comments along the way.
Right, now the ‘Jap’s are too powerful’ debate…
I don’t consider myself an axis fanboy but what I am about to write next may convince you otherwise.
First and foremost I consider WitP and UV to be games rather than simulations. As such, quibbling over the accuracy of certain tactics used, or capabilities of weapons pales beside the need to keep both sides interested in the GAME. I see WitP’s main campaign scenario occurring in 3 phases:

1. Japanese ascendency. War begins. They have short lines of supply – good pilots, aircraft and capable surface ships commanded by capable leaders. They can and will get the upper hand against the allied side during this period. The allied player must succour himself with small victories and pat themselves on the back for each successful retreat they manage. The important point to make here is the allies know this isn’t a permanent situation; there is light at the end of the tunnel. Personally I don’t get down on many of my losses as the allies early in the game (UV or WitP when I get it). I know that the supply lines for the Japs are going to get so long that they wont be able to support any more expansion – equilibrium must be reached.

2. Equal Combatants. Usually from about June 42 to May 43. Both sides have good units; the allies are catching up in numbers and can get local areas of superiority. The Japanese ships and planes are suffering from wear and tear; their pilot’s capability falling as the new allied designs surpass their planes. This to me is the best part of the game – equality. It cannot last as the very fact the japs use their ships planes and pilots means they will loose them – they don’t have the same capability to replace them. So, slowly the Jap player is starting to loose strength and ability to resist – there is no light at the end of the tunnel for them.

3. Allied Superiority. About May ’43 on. In every facet of the game the allies have superiority accept surface combat TFs (Japs are comparable)– and here the allies make up for this with numbers. A successful – read long lance or surprise – surface attack by the Japs still results in losses they can’t replace and more likely in damaged ships being sunk, as they retreat during the day, by allied air power. Here is my big issue (sorry about the long winded way of getting here) baring EXTREMELY fortunate early play – read the Japs still have all KB as in PzB’s AAR against Crocky – there is absolutely nothing they can do to halt the allied advance. Squirreling away Aircraft and ships to see them smashed because of inferiority is heart breaking. To me this is the kicker. Fortunately for us we are not actually fighting the war, in the real deal the allies won through all of these superior capabilities, we can breathe the free air; but this is a game! You are going to find a rare Jap player indeed who will put up with being incapable of doing anything to stop the allies AND knowing it is only going to get worse. Forget ‘trying out the A-bomb’ no game is going to get that far because the Jap players are going to surrender.

So, to all of you that lament the increased capabilities of the Japanese as ahistorical I say: “spare me, I would trade this inconsistency with closer late game play any day”. World War 2 in the Pacific was NOT a fight between equal combatants; we know that, we live with the results; but you cannot make a GAME with such parameters, playing as the Japanese in the end game wont be fun it will be torture.

I say “let the japs have torpedo port runs” let them have ASW capability; they need all the help they can get. It may rankle those that KNOW the allies are more powerful than they are being portrayed, but I am playing UV scenario 9 – stalemate and counterpunch – against PzB as the Japs and the feeling of helplessness is the overriding one. Every weapon the Japs possess is a one shot Charlie, and the date? Well its April ’43 that is one hell of a long time until the actual end of the war. I cannot see many players wanting to put up with the punishment if they don’t feel they have some ability to resist. If you set this game up to be a simulation then it will take a truly hardy soul to continue until the end.

< Message edited by wobbly -- 4/23/2004 12:47:15 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 38
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 2:07:45 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Then give us an example. Anyway, Doolittle used B 25s off a CV but we CAN'T do this, so why be allowed to do something which was NOT done.

This is kinda fun.


I am aware of none. That doesn't mean they couldn't. Thus, thats why i've asked "why not?" The B-25's didn't because the USAAF didn't much pursue the use of torpedoes. They did toy with the idea using B-26's.....the experiment going rather badly at Midway.

This is not the case with the Japanese who embraced LBA torp tactics prewar


First and foremost...it was not done. Having "embraced" it or not does not hide the fact that they did not utilize it. Before allowing it in the game, it should be illustrated that it was possible, preferably with established fact , not the other way around. Not only should it be shown that it was feasable to do once, it should be shown that it was a standard operating procedure and was practiced regularily. Why? Because players will.

Here is an example why not...

During the German attack on Bari, Italy in Dec, 1943, the shipping (which was the designated target of the attack) was hit by over 150 JU 88s flown by pilots experienced in torpedo attack. They attacked with BOMBS. Why? Attacking with torpedo armed level bombers was deemed (by Wolfram von Richtofen no less) next to impossible due to harbour defences, harbour geography in relation to level bomber attack prerequisites and potential damage yield. Attacking with torpedoes severely limited the number of targets which could PHYSICALLY be hit IF the bombers managed to drop them effectively. Using bombs, they sank 17 freighters and damaged 8, and also succeeded in releasing Mustard Gas which the Americans had secretly shipped in the Liberty ship "John Harvey". Sneaky Americans...

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 4/22/2004 7:14:38 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 39
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 2:13:34 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		I have seen a photo - can't find it, of betties or nells coming in across a harbour mouth, dropping torps at ships at anchor - I think it was vs allied transports at PM.

For all you crybabies screaming about the non historical-ness of the combat, deal with it. I didn't choose a historical turn one, and I certainly didn't leave the orders as they were historically. I'm here to do better than the japanese - and so far I'm possibly doing that (minus a few more pilots however).

A port hex does not just represent a harbour, it represents a 60 mile large hex. Ships moored "out in the chains" or even further out, even outside the harbour often due to the size of ports and the difficulty of traffic control.

The war started with a torpedo attack in a very shallow port where everyone said it couldn't be done. SO, is it more -ahistoric to include level bombers which would have been able to do it under some, if not all circumstances, or is it more historical to ban the lot?

If you can the lot, ships are suddenly "safe" from everything except bombs in port - far safer than they ever were in real life. A human player would just hie his ships into port and hide from the torps. In real life those ships were running for their lives because to get bombed in port was a really bad idea.

Now Mike, you comments on the "triple move surprise" really irritate. For starters, they are all available in options when you set up the game. If you don't like it, don't play it. However I like it, and I'm playing it this way. You are going to have to take some pills and deal with it.

As for sailing my battleline to singapore, I also had time to sail KB from the home islands to Pearl (which is further)!! This is because the japanese are given a movement bonus on first turn to represent the fact that they would have PLANNED for it in the previous montsh and weeks. Singapore and Pearl are the limit - you can't get KB behind pearl, and you can't get BBs from Japan to hit darwin or anything truly crazy.

This rule represents that the japs had planning and surprise and ALLOWS THE HUMAN PLAYER TO CHANGE THE PLAN before the 7th. This is the single greatest feature that adds replayablility to the game. You just can't seem to see past the history-version (which I'm not playing here) can you?? What if I'd gone with my plan-b which was not to attack pearl at all, but sink every transport at manila instead with KB??????? I decided not to attack pearl (majorly ahistoric) would you still be bitching and whining? What if I had tried to "stab in the atlantic" and catch Raver's CVs instead? Often doesn't work, but if it did, 2 sunk us cvs would be a great result!

Ron - these results were not attempted by the japs in real life for several reasons. The first one was the added risk - especially at pearl for doing things like devoting all the strike aircraft to the port attack. Pearl could have launched a counterstrike at KB (have seen it several times - always happens if you don't hit the airfields. My aim was to hit them hard enough to keep them from attacking KB. As for singapore, well if you read the combat report you'll realise that my battleline there got hammered by the CD unit (in spite of the fact that it was a total surprise to the poms!). The extra troops I'm throwing around the place, as Mog explained months ago, come at a cost. They have to be back in China before things get really messy.

Disappointed that the history-or-die attitude is being applied to my historic first turn OFF, jap surprise ON game. Especially when I do something very risky, get a reasonable return (often allied AA at pearl and at singapore just makes loosing so many betties unbearable) and have the peanut gallery go apeshit about things that, well, they already knew about. Everything here has already been discussed - ad nauseum. Can't we find something new to complain about?

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 40
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 2:42:52 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Not bitching or crying about PH, Luskan. Just about the Cavite results using level bombers. Ridiculous at best. Regarding the Betty photo example, attacking ships anchored outside of the defences is another thing entirely. That's more of a stacking limit issue. However, can't see important units like CVs, BBs, SSs etc, with facilities built expressly for their servicing and defence, being left to anchor outside of said facilities.

Putting all this detail effort into a historical sim then allowing this kind of stuff defeats the effort. And for those on the forum saying that they want a game, to hell with realism, then they should dust off their Koei consoles. They came to the wrong place according to the website adverts. It's akin to scratchbuilding a scale replica of the Constitution and letting one's kid play with it in the bathtub.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 41
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 2:49:36 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Ron quit kibitzing this game and play your own. I don't make port attacks on turn 1 (except for PH)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 42
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 3:08:40 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Luskan - I'd be happy to see the combat report for Turn 2....

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 43
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 3:17:11 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, Ron quit kibitzing this game and play your own. I don't make port attacks on turn 1 (except for PH)


Mog, quit whining at them and get turn 4 to me

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 44
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 3:20:43 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Hate to be the voice of reason, but as much as I enjoy this, I enjoy reading the AAR more! Can we limit comments to that aspect in this thread please? I'd be more than happy to start up another thread so we can rehash the torp bomber debate...

Sorry to be the grump, I just want to read about this game since I can't play it yet!

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 45
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 3:37:31 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Pretty sad when a person with 6 PBEM games of WITP is sitting waiting for just one turn to come back. (after 6 hours)



I have the "luxury" of being able to surf while at work, please don't take my being online as me being at home.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 46
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 3:55:42 AM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1922
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		and you have my turn

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 47
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 4:04:35 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

TF 17 troops unloading over beach at Khota Bharu, 24,45

Coastal Guns at Khota Bharu, 24,45, firing at TF 17
TF 17 troops unloading over beach at Khota Bharu, 24,45


4097 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Kamo
DD Kiji
DD Kari
DD Kasasagi

Japanese ground losses:
1171 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported


Hmmm - here too, 1000's of "coastal gun shots" fired.

The Singapore numbers - 54 or whatever - sounded reasonable. But unless the program is reporting on soldier's arms fire too, the numbers don't make a lot of sense.

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Luskan)
Post #: 48
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 4:23:13 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 49
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 4:31:51 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.

Under this theory the Japanese should be allowed to "torpedo" airfields. A torpedo
IS a killer weapon, but it does have certain inate limitations. There are situations
in which it's use simply isn't practical. To say those limitations should be ignored
so the Japanese can get better attack results is just complete "fanboyism".

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 50
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 4:32:10 AM   
Rendova


Posts: 405
Joined: 2/28/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.


Just because the Japanese are going to lose should not mean they are more effective and get to kill more allied ships just for kicks, if they had the ability to do it let them if they didn't don't let them. If you want a fair game go play tick tack toe

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 51
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 4:52:22 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Lots of AA type guns there with high rates of fires. Notice it says shots, not guns. It is actually a very nice addition, lets you know whether to pack your bags and pull a "Sir Robin" when you see the first part of the landing.

(in reply to ADavidB)
Post #: 52
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 5:07:05 AM   
ADavidB


Posts: 2464
Joined: 9/17/2001
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Lots of AA type guns there with high rates of fires. Notice it says shots, not guns. It is actually a very nice addition, lets you know whether to pack your bags and pull a "Sir Robin" when you see the first part of the landing.


Oh, so the AA guns fire at enemy troops too? Do they do that in UV also? If that's correct it is very good to know. (I've never noticed that in UV.)

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 53
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 5:15:54 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Oh, so the AA guns fire at enemy troops too? Do they do that in UV also? If that's correct it is very good to know. (I've never noticed that in UV.)


The landings in UV have been completely reworked. It is just one of the many things that has been enhanced in WitP. When comparing UV to WitP, you really need to think in terms of a baby growing up. There are just so many things that have been enhanced that it becomes hard to keep track of them all. People coming from UV are going to have some VERY BAD habits to unlearn. I'm just waiting to see someone start the old forward defence thread that used to be such fun to argue in UV's forum.

(in reply to ADavidB)
Post #: 54
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 5:42:20 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		Ahhhh........another Christian for the lions !

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 55
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 5:57:37 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		As much as I hate to admit it, I'm in a pbem in UV with me as the japs where my opponent has pulled off the first month "charge!" forward defence idea. Kanga force has taken every base except Lae, and he hold Buka with several squadrons and several inf units.

Took me by surprise (yes I was being lazy and his not rolling over and just giving me northern PNG caught me off guard badly - lost lots of ships).

I awnt to see my turn two as well, but while I have the afternoon off, Raver won't be doing the turn until tonight. Especially since it is his first and most important chance to settle in, and give orders to EVERYTHING. Will be a long turn. After that things speed right up.

Of course, it is a long weekend here so with the exception of a few anzac day committments (at dawn no less), a radiohead gig and some duties for she who must be obeyed, well, I'll be piling on the turns. Doomed - you got my turn as well?

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 56
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 7:00:13 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		People seem to forget the fact that the Doolitle raid was a one-way trip.......hoping to make China.....I wouldn't use the tactic myself......Doolittle never fooled himself thinkin' he was gonna land that big ol' bomber on that postage stamp sized flightdeck.....therefore, to insert it as a usual thing in WitP would be a unnecessary tidbit IMHO.

< Message edited by rogueusmc -- 4/23/2004 11:06:18 AM >

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 57
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 8:39:00 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Joel, my opinion is that a setup that would have only some of the attacking a/c carry torpedoes would be the best compromise. If you think of ships tied up at finger piers, only those on the outermost piers would really be susceptible to torpedoes. Torpedoes need a straight run at their target for some distance (what... 50 yards? 100 yards? 400 yards?) and many port layouts will prevent this.

I am willing to accept the limitation that we have to allow torpedoes in all or none of the ports. If we can't limit the percentage of ships that can be targetted by torpedoes, then limiting the percentage of a/c that carry them (if possible) seems to be the best choice.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 4/23/2004 6:45:53 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 58
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 8:58:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		The torpedo itself needs several hundred yards of "run" to stabilize in depth, and
the plane delivering it needs even more of a run in to line up on the target and
achieve a stable drop altitude. One of the reasons that the torpedo planes at PH
concentrated on "Battleship Row" was the loch on that side of Ford Island allowed
more "run-in" room than the rest of the rather narrow and convoluted area of the
Naval Base. Singapore Naval Base is basically an East_West Channel. Unless for
some bizarre reason the Brits decided to moor a ship cross-wise in the channel
there just isn't room for a torpedo bomber to make a run.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 59
RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! - 4/23/2004 10:03:26 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		deleted.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 4/23/2004 8:45:37 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: An Aussie Beta Affair - Luskan V Raver!!! 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

0.773