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: Torpedo Attacks in Ports

 
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: Torpedo Attacks in Ports Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 5:28:26 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I just made a post on the dev forum which is simple and should resolve the issue.

Basically, the game as is has all the necessary ingredients but one...max port capacity. Perhaps a value of 10 ships per port size value (size 10 port = facilities for 100 ships to disband). Ships which disband are assumed to be within harbor facilities and get the benefits therein...net defences, channels, slips, drydocks, nesting....all things which negate the ability to be torpedoed (Pearl Harbor the exception on turn one). All other ships must be left in TFs and docked until room has been cleared. As per the game, they are vulnerable to torp attack. No need for all these new features being discussed.


Thats basically what I have been advocating for, except I would include "docked" ships into the max capacity as well since its docked ships that embark, disembar, load and unload ect.... Not sure what the numbers should be but I dont think it would be too difficult to come up with a consensus.


I think "docked" ships should have stay out of capacity max, simply for game purposes as they don't unload when disbanded. Frag made a good point in the dev forums regarding the AI. He thinks this capacity limit may wreak havoc with the AI. I was thinking that perhaps the AI should ignore the capacity limit.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 121
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 5:35:55 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I just made a post on the dev forum which is simple and should resolve the issue.

Basically, the game as is has all the necessary ingredients but one...max port capacity. Perhaps a value of 10 ships per port size value (size 10 port = facilities for 100 ships to disband). Ships which disband are assumed to be within harbor facilities and get the benefits therein...net defences, channels, slips, drydocks, nesting....all things which negate the ability to be torpedoed (Pearl Harbor the exception on turn one). All other ships must be left in TFs and docked until room has been cleared. As per the game, they are vulnerable to torp attack. No need for all these new features being discussed.


Thats basically what I have been advocating for, except I would include "docked" ships into the max capacity as well since its docked ships that embark, disembar, load and unload ect.... Not sure what the numbers should be but I dont think it would be too difficult to come up with a consensus.


I think "docked" ships should have stay out of capacity max, simply for game purposes as they don't unload when disbanded. Frag made a good point in the dev forums regarding the AI. He thinks this capacity limit may wreak havoc with the AI. I was thinking that perhaps the AI should ignore the capacity limit.


My thinking is that unloading, loading, ships are in port and should be protected, but I would settle for dispanded ships at this point. As far as wreaking havoc with the AI. Do a/c limits for airbases currently cause problems for the AI? Isnt this pretty much the same thing? Wouldnt a simply priority que based on system damaged do the trick?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 122
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:13:38 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 123
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:38:52 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.


Building a map covering this area of the Earth's sphere is quite difficult. I'm sure this was a big challenge for the development team. If they had built a mercator projection, the distance a hex would represent (if they had all been of the same size on the screen) would have to have changed depending on the latitude. Somewhat like what SPI did in War in the Pacific. If there are still map issues, that is unfortunate....

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 124
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:43:23 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Here are the Bettys attacking the invasion force at Guadalcanal....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 125
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:50:27 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Great picture! They sure as heck look like they are lower then 200 feet!

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 126
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:53:01 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.


Hi Mike,

IIRC, I believe the the max range of a torp carrying Betty/Nell is little over 700mi. At least thats the approximate distance between Rabaul and Lunga and we know Betty/Nells reached there. Besides this isnt just about Singapore or Cavite for that matter although they are the most evident in the AARs. Simply adding some sort of max port capacity to the game would make this problem go away and should make everyone happy.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 127
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:56:19 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Lol! before you Allied Fanboys are finished, you will have the Betty flying less distance the a B-25!

Empty: (G4M1) 14,860 lb (6,741 kg); (G4M2) 17,623 lb (7,994 kg); (G4M3) 18,500 lb (8,391 kg)
Loaded: (G4M1) 20,944 lb (9,500 kg); (G4M2,3) 27,550 lb (12,500 kg)
Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 28,350 lb (12,860 kg); (G4M2,3) 33,070 lb (15,000 kg)
Range at Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 3,132 miles (5,040 km); (G4M2) 2,982 miles (4,800 km); (G4M3) 2,262 miles (3,640 km)

The whole reason the darn things were paper thin was because of the range! There was NOTHING on the aircraft in the way of protection to keep the weight down to keep the RANGE up!

< Message edited by Mr.Frag -- 4/27/2004 12:04:05 PM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 128
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 6:58:44 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		And this photo proves what? Its a photo of Bettys attacking the Lunga TF underway in Iron Bottom Sound on Aug 8, 1942. there was plenty of room to manuever inside the slot. Its not a port or an anhorage. No one said Bettys could not fly at low level, but I would like to see a Betty get that low within a port when it enevitably had to fly over a land mass to get in there in the first place.

< Message edited by TIMJOT -- 4/27/2004 5:02:24 PM >

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 129
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:04:38 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"Hi Brady. Just want to clarify things a bit. First, those Bettys were sent off to find and attack the USN CVs, not to attack a port. when they failed to locate them they went looking for shipping at Lunga. They found Turners TF out in Iron bottom sound and attacked and were subsequently virtually wiped out. Its interesting to note that those Bettys passed right over shipping inside Tuligi Harbor and did not attempt to attack those lame ducks.......hmmm I wonder why? "

Ah, that was a seperate mishion, the ones I posted only pertain to atacking shiping off Lunga, Not Tulagi, nothing I have posted (the 4 i mention above) have anything to do with atacking shiping at Tulagi. The Shipiong at Lunga was their target.

"No they should be immune to torp attack. I believe currently ships docked and disbanded are still subject to bombing attack. Correct? Besides it is not lame at all. As long as they simply limit the number of ships that can be docked or dispanded within a particular size port. "

I think realisticaly that their imunity from torp atack would in the real world depend a lot on the geographical situation of the harbor, but not all harbors would provide this defense, many would be subject to this, even a confined harbor such as Peral Harbor was not imune from torp atack, granted the larger planes would have a harder time working in their but it does not exclude them all. In game terms modeleing this is of course a different matter entirely, preesntly I would be ok with not allowing Twins into ports with torps if we can use the larger bombs, if not I would rather use the torps.
Bombing ships in port in UV was Porly modeled, ships should be far more vulnerable than they were their.

Torp Nets were not at all a common thing, espichaly in more forward areas, it would be way wrong to asume they were present everywhear all the time, and not every ships would have them even in ports with some around, and even then they may not be layed out, depending on the threat or the movement of the ships.

I kinda like the idea of limiting the number of ships withen a port, it makes since but:

1) Will the AA defensis from the port not aply to them, they should not imo.

2) How will you move ships around? say you want to move ships in and out of the port?, From the Raods to the dock so to speak.

3)Will you be able to target these ships seperatly? or will they be like a TF that is un docked in that hex? A disbanded one?

It might be easer to simply make ships in port more vulnerable to Atack from the Air, like they were in the real world.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 130
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:16:24 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Lol! before you Allied Fanboys are finished, you will have the Betty flying less distance the a B-25!

Empty: (G4M1) 14,860 lb (6,741 kg); (G4M2) 17,623 lb (7,994 kg); (G4M3) 18,500 lb (8,391 kg)
Loaded: (G4M1) 20,944 lb (9,500 kg); (G4M2,3) 27,550 lb (12,500 kg)
Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 28,350 lb (12,860 kg); (G4M2,3) 33,070 lb (15,000 kg)
Range at Maximum Overload: (G4M1) 3,132 miles (5,040 km); (G4M2) 2,982 miles (4,800 km); (G4M3) 2,262 miles (3,640 km)

The whole reason the darn things were paper thin was because of the range! There was NOTHING on the aircraft in the way of protection to keep the weight down to keep the RANGE up!


Actually I am no more an Allied Fanboy than you are a Axis Fanboy. I just as adamatly argued against the unrealistic Essex Respawning feature.

As far as range is concern I for one was refering to max outward leg range. Not total range. I dont have the stats in front of me, but I recollect reading that the Bettys attacking Lunga were just about at max range with torps.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 131
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:24:38 PM   
Mr.Frag


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

Max range of a Betty is just a tad over 3000 miles. We cut that in half for outbound/inbound legs and we are left with 1500 miles. We shave off a 3rd of that for forming up the raid (I am being overly generous here as to how much fuel would be burned forming up and landing) and you are still left with 1000 miles on the outboard leg.

How that means that Singapore which is only 675 miles is even remotely in question I don't know.

Singapore is short flight for a Betty running at it's maximum weight forget about running at a lower weight since it doesn't need to carry almost 1000 miles worth of extra fuel. They from a range/weight standpoint could probably have carried an extra torpedo if the technology existed to be able to mount it and drop it.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 132
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:31:48 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Nells, have almost the same range as Bettys do they are very close.

Some Japanese Buff ranges from Francillion:

Peggy: Normal 1,740 miles , max 2,360 miles. **

Helen: Normal 1,243 miles, Max 1,833 miles (750kg normal,1K max bomb load)

Sally: Normal 932 miles, Max 1,680 miles (Normal 750KG, Max 1,000KG)

Ki-48: Normal 1,274 miles, Max 1,491 miles ***

Nell: Max range(G3M2) 2,365 Nauticle miles/ 2,722 st miles [ (G3M3) 3,871 st miles]*


* Bombload same a Bettys weight wise 800KG (thought the G4M2 and M3 could cary up to 1,000KG of bombs)

** Normal load 500KG, Max 800KG, Torpedo atack either a 800kg or a 1,070 kg Torpedo.

*** Varied depending on model,Ki-48-II 400KG Normal, 800 KG Max.

< Message edited by Brady -- 4/27/2004 5:58:41 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 133
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:47:25 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT


Actually I am no more an Allied Fanboy than you are a Axis Fanboy. I just as adamatly argued against the unrealistic Essex Respawning feature.

As far as range is concern I for one was refering to max outward leg range. Not total range. I dont have the stats in front of me, but I recollect reading that the Bettys attacking Lunga were just about at max range with torps.


No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"

As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.

One of the simple reasons being, this PORT issue is no Magic bullet. Players can counter this strategy by simply playing the game realistically, i.e. never congregate your ships within effective range of enemy LBA. This was true even before partial PORT torpedo attacks were allowed...and of course is more so now. For the Japanese, they must also face the possiblity of running into strong AA and fighter defences which, at the very least will prove costly in the long run

For myself.....as soon as any major port is within effective range of LBA (and i define that by the LBA being in "escorted" range), my ships bug out unless i either have a death wish or unless i have very strong AA and fighter defences in place. As such, i dont recall any one instance where Pry was able to decimate me with Port attacks using Bettys or Nells. I recall the Java phase in particular when i made the "writing is on the wall" decision to abandon my ports because i knew enemy airpower was achieving supremacy. Had i stayed....well bombs or torpedoes......really irrelevent to a degree (esp since 800kg is used), i'd have deserved what i would have gotten.



P.S. Still looking forward to your "Darwin strategy"

_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 134
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:53:22 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Mike:

Max range of a Betty is just a tad over 3000 miles. We cut that in half for outbound/inbound legs and we are left with 1500 miles. We shave off a 3rd of that for forming up the raid (I am being overly generous here as to how much fuel would be burned forming up and landing) and you are still left with 1000 miles on the outboard leg.

How that means that Singapore which is only 675 miles is even remotely in question I don't know.

Singapore is short flight for a Betty running at it's maximum weight forget about running at a lower weight since it doesn't need to carry almost 1000 miles worth of extra fuel. They from a range/weight standpoint could probably have carried an extra torpedo if the technology existed to be able to mount it and drop it.


Frag, I have no reason to doubt your range stats as I said I was going by recollection and never thought range was a factor in regards to attacking Singapore or Cavite. At least we can agree on that.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 135
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 7:56:44 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Mike:

Max range of a Betty is just a tad over 3000 miles. We cut that in half for outbound/inbound legs and we are left with 1500 miles. We shave off a 3rd of that for forming up the raid (I am being overly generous here as to how much fuel would be burned forming up and landing) and you are still left with 1000 miles on the outboard leg.

How that means that Singapore which is only 675 miles is even remotely in question I don't know.

Singapore is short flight for a Betty running at it's maximum weight forget about running at a lower weight since it doesn't need to carry almost 1000 miles worth of extra fuel. They from a range/weight standpoint could probably have carried an extra torpedo if the technology existed to be able to mount it and drop it.

Maximum range is with fuel and no bombs. Operational Torpedo Bomber range is closer to 600 due to load and flight profile, while with bombs (depending on the weight of the load-out) it's between 750 and 1400---and at 1400 you aren't dropping much more than ill wishes.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 136
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:03:30 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		We normally do agree on most things

I just wanted the highlight all the different issues that come into play with changing one simple rule so you could see it from all sides, not picking on your specifically, but folks tend to loose sight of the forest when chopping down a tree only to find out that the tree doesn't fall where they thought it would

I am all for anything that makes the game better without breaking the game. I fight tooth and nail when I see something that threatens to break the game and try and make everyone look at all sides of the issue.

Given the game is already beta, any major changes threaten the release date. The only turn that Japan can really go to town on this is turn #1, when all defensive strengths are effectively quartered. There are many features already in the game to offer ways of preventing this. As such, while being a sore spot for many, is it worth risking the release date over?

I know what your answer is without you even posting it

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 137
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:04:10 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"The G3M1 Model 11 could cary a 800KG payload for 1772 statute miles."

Above from Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Units of WW2, by Osamu Tagaya.
.........................................................................................................
From an edited post above in case it was missed:

Nells, have almost the same range as Bettys do they are very close.

Some Japanese Buff ranges from Francillion:

Peggy: Normal 1,740 miles , max 2,360 miles. **

Helen: Normal 1,243 miles, Max 1,833 miles (750kg normal,1K max bomb load)

Sally: Normal 932 miles, Max 1,680 miles (Normal 750KG, Max 1,000KG)

Ki-48: Normal 1,274 miles, Max 1,491 miles ***

Nell: Max range(G3M2) 2,365 Nauticle miles/ 2,722 st miles [ (G3M3) 3,871 st miles]*


* Bombload same a Bettys weight wise 800KG (thought the G4M2 and M3 could cary up to 1,000KG of bombs)

** Normal load 500KG, Max 800KG, Torpedo atack either a 800kg or a 1,070 kg Torpedo.

*** Varied depending on model,Ki-48-II 400KG Normal, 800 KG Max.

< Message edited by Brady -- 4/27/2004 6:07:35 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 138
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:05:31 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I may have spotted one of the reasons why there is a torpedo controversy in the
first place. THE MAP IS WRONG. The "as the crow flys distance" from Saigon to
Singapore in the real world is 675 statute miles. On the game map its at least 100
miles shorter, and those 100 miles are a big point in deciding whether a Betty or
Nell can make a Torpedo attack.


I was wondering how long it would take someone to figure this out. Yes, the map is wrong. Of course it is. It is a flat map covering almost half the globe. On top of that we have a 60 mile hex which in itself can throw things off (just having hexagons makes some distances incorrect). Until we go to a 3D globe map, we will have these problems. I'll even volunteer my biggest personal complaint about the map. The distance from Brisbane to Noumea appears to be around 900 miles, but in the game it is 23 hexes or 1380 miles. Unfortunately we could not correct this without throwing other distances off. I have found the distances are generally better around the equator, and further off at the top and bottom of the map, but given we are using hexes, there are problems everywhere.

On the other hand, the map is pretty good in most places, and works good enough. Although we can do a lot, we don't claim the ability to bend time and space to our will.

As for the torpedo argument, Singapore is clearly within Betty range of Saigon since Lunga was in torpedo range of Rabaul. In the game, Betty's can fly 900 miles and carry torpedoes. This is what our sources indicate, and the numbers quoted above would seem to agree.

As for this entire discussion of torpedo attacks on ports, we've made the following decision. We will be leaving the game alone. The lack of consensus on this issue along with the strong chance of adding bugs into the game if we try to make a change has convinced me the right move is to do nothing. In the tester forum, our personal favorite new rule developed by Pry and Frag was to only allow torpedo attacks on ships in port if the number of ships in port was greater than the port size times some number (a number that would probably be between 5 and 10). This would represent that if the port was overloaded, not all ships would be in protected anchorages with torpedo netting. I like this rule, but I've been told there is a decent chance of a bug if we try to add this now, and it doesn't seem worth the risk to implement it now. I thank those of you who have participated in this discussion.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 139
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:21:28 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Brady
Ah, that was a seperate mishion, the ones I posted only pertain to atacking shiping off Lunga, Not Tulagi, nothing I have posted (the 4 i mention above) have anything to do with atacking shiping at Tulagi. The Shipiong at Lunga was their target.


Brady, I apologize if I am not being clear, but it is not a seperate mission. Just to reiterate. Shipping was the target of the Betty's on Aug 7th,42. The Bettys attacked with bombs. The USN CVs were the target on Aug 8th. When the CVs could not be found the Bettys, instead of dumping their ordnance, went looking for shipping at Lunga. In doing so that passed right over ships at anchor in Tuligi Harbor and attacked Turner's TF underway out in the sound. I am unaware of any other Betty torpedo attack specifically directed at shipping at or around Lunga. Other than the night attack on the Chicago underway in the slot in 1943. If you are interested a good source of the campaign is "Guadacanal" (Franks) or "History of USN Operations in WWII Vol.IV" ( Morrison )



quote:

I think realisticaly that their imunity from torp atack would in the real world depend a lot on the geographical situation of the harbor, but not all harbors would provide this defense, many would be subject to this, even a confined harbor such as Peral Harbor was not imune from torp atack, granted the larger planes would have a harder time working in their but it does not exclude them all. In game terms modeleing this is of course a different matter entirely, preesntly I would be ok with not allowing Twins into ports with torps if we can use the larger bombs, if not I would rather use the torps.


I have no problem if Med.Bombers are excluded from torp attacks, to allow larger bombs in port attack if indeed it can be proven it was the typical ordance used in such attacks. I personally dont know enough about it to comment one way or another.


quote:

I kinda like the idea of limiting the number of ships withen a port, it makes since but:

1) Will the AA defensis from the port not aply to them, they should not imo.


I agree, AA defense would not apply. Any undocked undisbanded ships ships in a hex would be considered outside the harbor either milling about or anchored at a Roads.

quote:

2) How will you move ships around? say you want to move ships in and out of the port?, From the Raods to the dock so to speak.


Simple, just click dock or dispand TF and you are inside the port. Click undock TF and you are outside the port. If you create a TF out of disbanded ships and do not dock them they are considered outside the port.

quote:

Will you be able to target these ships seperatly? or will they be like a TF that is un docked in that hex? A disbanded one?


No as it is now you wouldnt be able target ships seperately. Yes they would be just like undocked TFs now. If you think about it why is there even a distinction now between docked and undocked TFs when there are no Max docking limits? Disbanded ships are in the port and are imune, but there should be a max limit that can be dispanded based on the current generic port sizes.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 140
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:40:14 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"

As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.


Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least. That do to the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.

(EDIT) Never mind just read Joels post.

< Message edited by TIMJOT -- 4/27/2004 6:59:30 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 141
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:46:19 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

As for this entire discussion of torpedo attacks on ports, we've made the following decision. We will be leaving the game alone.


Thank you! That is great news. So the rule will be: 1/2 of the planes will carry torpedoes and the other 1/2 will carry 800kg bombs?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 142
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:51:13 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Given the game is already beta, any major changes threaten the release date. The only turn that Japan can really go to town on this is turn #1, when all defensive strengths are effectively quartered. There are many features already in the game to offer ways of preventing this. As such, while being a sore spot for many, is it worth risking the release date over?

I know what your answer is without you even posting it


Your guess is correct. No delay in release date How about simply negateing the turn one surprise effect for ships based at Singapore and Manila for all but a/c set on night attack. Since it was still night when the war started in those locations?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 143
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:56:37 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

As for this entire discussion of torpedo attacks on ports, we've made the following decision. We will be leaving the game alone. The lack of consensus on this issue along with the strong chance of adding bugs into the game if we try to make a change has convinced me the right move is to do nothing. In the tester forum, our personal favorite new rule developed by Pry and Frag was to only allow torpedo attacks on ships in port if the number of ships in port was greater than the port size times some number (a number that would probably be between 5 and 10). This would represent that if the port was overloaded, not all ships would be in protected anchorages with torpedo netting. I like this rule, but I've been told there is a decent chance of a bug if we try to add this now, and it doesn't seem worth the risk to implement it now. I thank those of you who have participated in this discussion.


Thanks Joel for considering this issue. I think Pry and Frags solution is a good compromise and hope it can be implemented down the road. I also hope you would consider the possibility of implementing a simple max ship limits inside ports as suggested by Ron and myself in a possible future patch as well. Looking forward to the release of the game.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 144
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 8:57:41 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"

As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.


Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least that to do the the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.

(EDIT) Never mind just read Joels post.


so we're still on for Operation Darwin?

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 4/27/2004 6:59:21 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 145
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 9:01:58 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"

As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.


Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least that to do the the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.

(EDIT) Never mind just read Joels post.


so we're still on for Operation Darwin?


I dont know Nik, its kind of a moot strategy if you already know what I am up to, but heck I will give it my best shot. Gonna need sometime playing in the minors before I can take on you major leaguers though.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 146
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 9:09:56 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		That is a real debate here. Outside turn 1 results, those attacks would be launched during all the war, istn't it ? When they were only used twice during all WWII. Why ?

Because after Taranto all navies protected their port with nets, except Pearl Harbor that was too shallow.... We know the result here but after that all main USN bases had their nets in place, you can be sure.

So I would say that torpedo attacks in ports (either by land-based mediums or CV planes) should only be used on Dec 7th, 1941, in PH.

Then there is people arguying that only some BB were able to be hit by torpedoes while the other were protected for this and this reason.

OK, is here is my proposal:
_ torpedo attacks against ships disbanded in ports or docked in port of size more than 3 are impossible.
_ but on turn 1, there will be in PH a TF with all ships vulnerable to torpedo attack, not docked, and so a naval attack mission with torpedoes may hit them.

In the Luskan vs Raver turn 1, the USN lost more subs than its the three years of the real WWII.... Never heard of a SS torpedoed in port anytime in history, even if tens of them were bombed in ports.

Also strongly doubting the IJN may have attacked Singapore from the sea on the 8th (turn 1 anyway). The Brits knew they were coming (actually a Catalina was shot down the day before Pearl Harbour, the 7th in this area) and only wandered if they would land in Thailand or Malaya. There were certainly no surprise in Malaya ... except of course the quality of the Japanes planes and crews and the jungle tactics of the infantry.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 147
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 9:15:40 PM   
Nikademus


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

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT


I dont know Nik, its kind of a moot strategy if you already know what I am up to, but heck I will give it my best shot. Gonna need sometime playing in the minors before I can take on you major leaguers though.


LOL, you make me sound like Mogami.

Believe me....i'm not nearly so formidable. Have to admit though....having had to spend six game months trying to ship supply to Oz.....the Darwin to SRA strategy would have some challenges though dependant on the Japanese disposition, but succeed. But i dont think it would shorten the war by much if at all vs the historical routes chosen

But it can be/will be cool to test that theory. Thats what this game is all about!

_____________________________


(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 148
Torpedo Nets - 4/27/2004 9:58:13 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, While there are of course other reasons for not allowing torpedo attacks on ports, I don't think torpedo nets are valid. Not all ports had the static nets (I think this would be a product of size and would require the addition of net tending ships to OB. Ports with a net tender would be protected ports without would not. The nets on ships themselves were proven ineffective prior to 1916. Introducing net layers would allow players to decide where to defend against torpedo attacks. The WW2 torpedo was stronger then what most nets could stop. (Nets deployed by the ships themselves)
There would be plenty of net tending ships so major ports would almost always be imune to torpdo attack. However advanced ports and smaller ports without a net tender would still be vulnerable.


"In 1907 advances in the propelling engines of Whitehead torpedoes doubled the available propelling power of the torpedo and adding about 10 kts to the maximum speed which for the first time was to give them sufficient punch to penetrate net defences. The days of the torpedo net were numbered.

Provision for anti-torpedo nets within the Royal Navy’s capital ship designs continued until 1911 when the KING GEORGE V class (1910 Estimates) were the last to enter service with anti-torpedo nets fitted, and although they were provided for the succeeding class of IRON DUKES (1911 Estimates), they were only fitted to Iron Duke during her trials period and were removed before she commissioned. Nets were discarded in all following designs. Those already fitted in ships were progressively removal from all class but some were retained as late as 1916, even though it was accepted by then that they were of limited value except for moral and as a seamanship evolution to keep ship’s company’s well drilled.

By the outbreak of WW1 torpedo nets had disappeared from all but German and British Navies where they could still be found on many capital ships. At the beginning of the Gallipoli campaign in spring 1915 the pre-dreadnought battleship GOLIATH was torpedoed and sunk by the Turkish torpedo boat MUAVENET whilst engaged in shore bombardment. Then the first U-boat arrived and quickly disposed of the TRIUMPH and MAJESTIC. All three ships had anti-torpedo nets deployed, but these proved no match for latest generation of torpedoes.

The torpedo that sank MAJESTIC passed clear through the nets without being checked. As the ship sank several men were drowned after becoming entangled and trapped in the very nets designed to protect them. Again in the case of HMS TRIUMPH, the nets did not prove effective. According to some reports, at least 2 torpedoes were fired in succession from the submarine against the same part of the net. The first torpedo cut through the netting, and the second passed through the hole made by the first. The ship was hit amidships, capsized after nine minutes, and sank 20 minutes later. Again it was said that a number of men were caught up by the nets when the ship turned over. These reports may not be quite accurate, but it is certain that the TRIUMPH had her nets out and they were ineffective. From this point the Royal Navy had to accept they had no effective defence against the torpedo and finally abandon the centuries old principle of close blockade.

The Germans retained nets until after the Battle of Jutland. However their experiences during the battle were that their vulnerability to shellfire and the possible consequences far out weighed any remaining benefits. Before the end of the war torpedo-nets had disappeared in both in the British and the German Navy. In the event, nets had proved useless at stopping the latest generation of torpedoes and afforded no protection even when the ship was stationary.

EPILOGUE

Advances in torpedo technology soon rendered nets obsolete and with no hope of stopping a hit attention turned to minimising the out come of a hit - hence the torpedo bulge compartmentalisation for large ships. In fact the first proposals for improved internal sub division to minimise the effect of torpedo attack had been made in 1884 - only a few years after the nets themselves were introduced.

Although nets disappeared from ships heavier static nets continued to be used to protect anchorage’s from submarine and torpedo attack throughout both WW1 and WW2 most famous being the 3-tiered nets that protected the TIRPITZ and nearly thwarted the X-Craft attack. The RN policy of using nets to protect anchorage’s continued into the late 50’s when the last dedicated net layer was paid off."

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 149
RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports - 4/27/2004 10:17:30 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Rerf. The 4 examples I sighted:

From Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko Unitts of WW2:

p.46

1)"* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs. "

This was 7th Aug. 42:

"27 Type 1 Rikko of 4th Kokutai made ready at Rabaul to atack a newely discovered airfield at Milne bay, on New Gunies eastern tip. Before they could depart on their mishion, howeaver, crews received the shocking news of enemy landings in the Solomon Islands...
The raid was hastily changed to a search and atack Mishion aganst the US task Force in the Solomons, 560 Nauticle miles from Rabaul. With no time to change ordance to torpedos"
"The formation reached Gudacanal shortly after 1300"
"Having received no information on the location of enemy CV's, Egawa decided to go after a cruizer and other vessels near Guadacanal."

In the area defined as a port in UV.








"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th). "

"With an escort of 15 Rei-sen, the land atackers went after the shiping off Guadacanal...as they droped down to wave top height to begine their runs the aa fire from rear admarial Kelly Turner screaning force of cruisers and destroyers proved absolutly ferocious..."

The USS jarvis was hit by a torpedo, and the Transport USS George F Elliot was hit by a Betty. The Betty lost I beleave 17 of their total number wheich was 23 , from ACk and fighters.

The following morining 16 bettys went out again and found only the Stricken jarvis and sunk her.

"That afternoon the US invashion force had pulled out, thought they had not finished unloading...thuse the following moring: that of the 10th:



"The 10th they went back to hit ships unloading but they had puled out "



"The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga. "

"On 12th of November, under the leadership of Tomo-o Nakamura, 19 Type 1 Rikko, went after a magor US convoy off Lunga."

Their were other Betty anti shiping sorties in the area during the campagine, but these 4 show them atacking ships in the area that was in UV defined as a port. Certainly this is not as black and weight as say the atack on Pearl harbor, but it does show how losely ports are defined in the game system.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

1.406