Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH

 
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 >> IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:02:12 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		It is bad enough that we have uber PT boats that can sink any ship afloat without breaking a sweat, but do they have to be friggin immune to air attack while at sea too?

I had CV TF cruising 120 miles away for 3 days from a PT boat TF. The PT's were overflown and sighted every friggin day. Not one single air attack launched on them.

Because they seem to be immune from air attack, I had a CV eat a torpedo. WTF!!!!!

That is the only reason I sent the CV's there in the first place, to clean out the UBER boats. I know they are small and hard to hit, but geez give me a break. 200 friggin a/c in my CV TF, another 150 sitting 240 mile away on land bases with lots of supply, and not a single air strike on these little pieces of crap.

This needs to be looked at geez.
Post #: 1
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:04:44 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Well they casn be attacked but only if you have planes on Naval attack and Altitude set at 100 feet. You will kill them but you will ruin your squadrons quickly doing it, since they get a huge penalty for flyign at 100 feet. I think the Attack level shold be changed to 1-2K feet. You still have to go in low but not take the double beating.

Same for AG's.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 2
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:06:40 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I guess in the REAL war, the carrier groups just did not launch a strike either. This is crap.

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 3
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:13:32 PM   
UncleBuck

 

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I understand why they hafve it the way they do, but think it is wrong. If you had them attacking PT's with full squadrons, what happens when they keep going after the PT Squadron 2 hexs away but ignore teh Transport, or Bombardment TF 5 hexes away? Now teh PT's are Super Screening vessels. That is why I said 1000 to 2000 feet woudl be better. Now if you ahe your DB's set to 100 feet so they can kill the PT's they get SLAUGHTERED if they do an attack on a real TF.

UB

_____________________________


(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 4
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:27:29 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I agree, why can the rule be changed to allow aircraft attacking PT boats to drop down to 100' to strafe them etc. Torpedo planes already drop down to attack. Allow the escort fighters (or 20%) of them to drop down and strafe them too.

These little boats already make you fear even sending in a DD TF to deal with them.

(in reply to UncleBuck)
Post #: 5
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:29:04 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

It is bad enough that we have uber PT boats that can sink any ship afloat without breaking a sweat, but do they have to be friggin immune to air attack while at sea too?

I had CV TF cruising 120 miles away for 3 days from a PT boat TF. The PT's were overflown and sighted every friggin day. Not one single air attack launched on them.

Because they seem to be immune from air attack, I had a CV eat a torpedo. WTF!!!!!

That is the only reason I sent the CV's there in the first place, to clean out the UBER boats. I know they are small and hard to hit, but geez give me a break. 200 friggin a/c in my CV TF, another 150 sitting 240 mile away on land bases with lots of supply, and not a single air strike on these little pieces of crap.

This needs to be looked at geez.


The trick to killing PTs is escorts - unless its a close up night action, then anything goes.. To kill PTs via air just use fighters.. I use zeros and Nates against enemy PTs in range. Just set the fighter group (I only use 9 planes at a time) to naval attack at 100 feet and set the range to the range to the PTs - this lessens the chance the fighters go off after some real target and get pasted.

My fighters will strafe the boats damaging them and drop some baby bombs 30 or 60 kg.. If any bomb hits the PTs they usually sink. I have destroyed about 10 PTs this way and have yet to lose a single fighter to them..

Xargun

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 6
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:35:09 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Yeah, but my crafty opponent has a CV or 2 lurking in the area. It is a damned if you do, damned if you do not situation.

i could not take the chance of setting anything to low altitude. Otherwise, I would have been pasted.

To add insult to injury, he guessed right about my dest, darted them in BROAD DAYLIGHT and they get surprise. Not like they were not spotted every dang day.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 7
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:43:57 PM   
Belphegor


Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline 		I might stand down the bombers and TBs, set up most carriers Fighters for CAP at about 80% (to protect against enemy CVs) and one carrier's fighters for 100 ft, and restrict their max range to where the TBs are in distance..... or detach a destroyer or two to go after them at high speed...

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 8
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:49:11 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline 		For your viewing pleasure.


Like I said in an email to 2nd, I guess I lucked out.

But then again I have PT boats from 3 different ports all with orders to try to intercept that fleet. And the fleet is located in the straits between Bali and Java, and that is really too close to my bases. Im not sure I think it is completely off the wall to have a successful PT attack. PT boats have a range of 2-4 hexes, and they are too small to engage with most ship weapons, and they were very hard to attack with aircraft too, due to their speed and manueverability.

I think it might be a plausible scenario if a carrier fleet ventures too close to enemy shore. But I dunno, I could be wrong, I usually am :)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Belphegor)
Post #: 9
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:53:06 PM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline 		I agree Xargun has got a nice solution (I have done the same and it works) but the problem remains that a CV TF steaming 120-180 miles off of the PI should not have to worry about attacks by PT boats. Am I wrong here? Did PT boats pose a threat to carrier TF's in this situation?

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 10
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:53:47 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I had enemy PT boats get in and torpedo one of my AK so I sent a TF of 4 DD after them and cleared them out with no problem.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 8/31/2004 3:54:29 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 11
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:54:14 PM   
Moquia


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		He he he, very nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 12
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 10:58:15 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have no problem with them attacking, just that a/c on naval strike should drop to 100' when attacking PT boats automatically. That way you do not get creamed if they go after a different TF. Since we have no control over target selection.

Also, the setting 80% of your fighters on CAP will not work, because the CAP will be flying at 100' and get butchered if anything comes at them.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 8/31/2004 3:00:09 PM >

(in reply to Moquia)
Post #: 13
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 11:11:12 PM   
Belphegor


Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline 		I meant set the fighter cap to normal altitude and the cap to 80% on all carriers besides the one carrying the fighters going after the PT boats. I assumed you had more than one Carrier in your TF, the remaining carrier fighters can handle things if 15 planes head off to deal with PT boats. Set cap to 0 on the carrier you are sending fighters at 100 ft from.

I'm not saying it's foolproof, but here is what I expect my aircraft to do from 3 carriers... no bombing, no torpedos, 30 planes on cap (say 15 fighters per CV) 15 planes flying at 100ft on a naval attack mission restricted to 1-2 hex range.

< Message edited by Belphegor -- 8/31/2004 9:16:07 PM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 14
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 11:20:10 PM   
Belphegor


Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline 		I did that in a game I have going. No PT boat made it through, or back to home port.

but I do agree that fighters (that don't have a bombload) should automatically drop to 100 feet to strafe if on a naval attack setting

< Message edited by Belphegor -- 8/31/2004 9:21:25 PM >

(in reply to Belphegor)
Post #: 15
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 11:50:38 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I would just like to see a/c set for naval strike automatically drop to 100' to attack PT boats if targeted. Covers the backside better. Unless they give me target selection capabilities.

(in reply to Belphegor)
Post #: 16
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 8/31/2004 11:58:16 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		I have used PTs a lot vs the AI, scen 16 at Manilla and nearby ports and at Singapore. I did sink a few AKs and damaged a lot more. But the PTs were whittled down in the process.

If you use them right (lunges at night to places you think the enemy AKs will be, then return to your port at dawn) I suspect in RL, like in the game, Aircraft would have trouble catching them.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 17
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 12:38:07 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		I'm not thrilled that PT boats "come alive" when parked in port -- and immediately ambush the intruding enemy TF from 2000 yards, permitting them to use torpedoes.

And yeah, I'm not thrilled that PT boats seem to have such success torpedoing escorted capital ships.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 18
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 12:57:58 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		I didn't say use an entire CV's fighter wing. Divide the unit on your CV and send one-third of it after the PTs, while the other 2/3s fly normal CAP..

Xargun

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 19
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 1:32:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Small boats at night are hard to see Submarines at night normal attack was a surface attack (they fired torpedos while on surface) So I would not expect to see a small boat at night at long range. Even today with radar we often sight ships by lookout before radar sees them. (depending on sea state the return from a small vessel may not be distingushed) I think the PT's do have radar (or will have it before end of war) So you have a case of a small ship often with a landmass behind it approaching enemy ships with open ocean behind them. Wonder who this set up favors?
In any case as Japan I just assume PT boats are present when planning landings. I form a TF of DD only (4 most often) Have it arrive the turn before the bombardment TF. Have the bombardment TF arrive the turn before the transport TF. So far I've not had a major ship hit by PT boats. Around PI they fire their torpedos in the battle against the DD TF and then depart or fight future actions using only .50cal

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 20
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:01:35 AM   
Capt. Queeg

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 8/12/2002
Status: offline 		Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII? Destroyers, yes. But PT boats? I found this source, which suggests not, but it's not exactly the most authoritative source.

Given that the two most famous PT boats of the war were the one that evacuated MacArthur from Corregidor and the one that got cut in half with a guy on board who coincidently later grew up to be president, one would suspect that their impact on surface warfare was minimal. Certainly nothing resembling the uber-PTs as currently modeled in WiTP.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 21
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:08:59 AM   
Wilhammer

 

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline 		Are seaplanes as penalized for 100 foot missions as land based planes?

The Japanese developed what one might think of as 'upside down shrage musik', cannons and guns pointing out from under seaplanes just to deal with PTs.

(in reply to Capt. Queeg)
Post #: 22
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:09:15 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Queeg

Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII? Destroyers, yes. But PT boats? I found this source, which suggests not, but it's not exactly the most authoritative source.

Given that the two most famous PT boats of the war were the one that evacuated MacArthur from Corregidor and the one that got cut in half with a guy on board who coincidently later grew up to be president, one would suspect that their impact on surface warfare was minimal. Certainly nothing resembling the uber-PTs as currently modeled in WiTP.


I am not sure if they scored any good hits or not, but think about how they were used in the real war and how players use them in WitP .... Not sure what their actual role in the war was, but in WitP, players use them as warships... I bet how they were originally used and how they are used in the game are very different...

In my games I have not run into the uber-PT problem at all and have been smacking them out of my way every surface fight I have. Now they hit hard and deadly when they strike unescorted ships, but hell a couple PGs can do that to.

If you take lossed from PTs on an unescorted convoy too bad.. The only problem I see here is their ability to sneak up and ambush capital ships during the day... This should be a rare occurence, especially if the TF has DD escorts.

Xargun

(in reply to Capt. Queeg)
Post #: 23
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:18:21 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		I WISH I had these uber PT boats.

The best my boats can do is knock off 1 or 2 unescorted APs. The rest of the time they get pasted. In a night action off Java, I had 6 PTs fo in on a Jap BB TF. I got 1 hit on the Haruna, and lost 4 boats in the process.

So, why aren't my boats the uber ones....

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 24
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:22:45 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		In my game against the AI the Japanese have sunk at least one PT boat in PI with air power. On top of that in for example the PI, the supplies dont exsist to keep rearming the PT boats with Torpedos, unless you advocate keeping all your supply in Manila. Once they fire that torp off, no more torpedos. Just a 50 cal machine Gun.

And the AI has never had trouble in my games sinking PT boats. They sank another PT boat in Batavia where I didnt score a single hit on a convoy of mostly ap ships with covering DD and PC.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 25
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 3:22:47 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I have no problem with the attack per se. My beef is that they are completely ignored by the air strike routine unless a/c are set for Naval strike at 100'. And then you have to pray that the strike goes after the correct target so you do not get butchered.

2 of those 3 days, not a single strike was conducted from those CV's. Even though the TF of PT's was sighted 120 miles away on each day. They should be a valid target if spotted regardless of the altitude setting of the a/c. Just have the strike a/c so as the torp bombers and fly to the target at 10,000 feet, but if the target are PT boats then have them drop to 100' to engage.

Give the attacking a/c a to hit penalty when attacking PT boats due to their maneuvability.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 26
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 5:34:32 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

Did PT boats ever sink or even seriously damage a major surface vessel during WWII?


AFIAK, the biggest ship they ever hit was Abukuma, on the morning after Surigao Strait. The intended target was a DD; they missed.....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Capt. Queeg)
Post #: 27
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 8:33:28 AM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline 		not read the full topic but if a carrier TF is close enough to land that a PT can make an attack I think there is something wrong with the admiral abilities

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 28
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 9:42:02 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moquia

He he he, very nice.


NO, not very nice, VERY WRONG. System is FUBAR and must be corrected before I play any PBEM with the conditions 2ndACR has posted. Uber-B-17's from UV all over again...

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Moquia)
Post #: 29
RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH - 9/1/2004 10:38:11 AM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd
NO, not very nice, VERY WRONG. System is FUBAR and must be corrected before I play any PBEM with the conditions 2ndACR has posted. Uber-B-17's from UV all over again...


I disagree.

I agree with 2nd ACR that the air-attack routine should be modified so that fighter units stationed on a carrier will target enemy PT units and not just ignore them. But there is nothing wrong with the attack per se in my opinion. 5 PTs managed to sneak up on an enemy fleet and launch their torpedos. There is nothing earthshattering wrong with that picture. It is not any flawed logic in the game. I lucked out, I managed to surprise his TF. If I hadnt surprised him, there would be 5 PT wrecks on the bottom of the ocean right now, because then his DDs would have butchered my PTs.

The combat was very one sided. It was allied surprise, allies fire on surprised japanese ships, then teh combat was over. No japanese ships fired a single round. The weather was rain. It is hardly unthinkable that in a situation with pouring rain, poor visibility and heavy seas, a surface taskforce too close to shore is surprised by 5 small PTs that come storming at 40knots. The PTs come from land so they are hard to spot against the shoreline and they are really small and the japanese ships are huge as houses silouetted against the open sea.

I think you are overreacting. There is nothing odd with the results.

What could be changed is how the AI selects targets for the aircraft. I dont think DBs or TBs should target PTs, but fighters should. So a fighter unit on cap should be given naval attack orders against any visible PT unit within X hexes.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund -- 12/17/2004 8:27:30 PM >

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to brisd)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH Page: [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

3.422