RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Apollo11 -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 6:42:51 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The complaint that torpedo range is "too great" is essentially bogus.
Study, for example, The Hunting of Force Z (book title). It is pretty clear that Japanese naval bombers would even conduct recon missions with torpedo armament, and could actually do so to greater ranges then our code allows.


Nice example... [8D] but even then not all of Betty/Nell carried torpedoes - some of them carried bombs for that mission!


BTW, why was that (historically speaking)?

Was it because of lack of torpedoes (i.e. they gave torpedoes, as most dangerous weapon, only to best crews)?


Leo "Apollo11"



juliet7bravo -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 6:52:26 PM)

I'm a firm believer in having to manufacture and distribute torpedoes, as well as restriction on the base size where they could be loaded onto AC (or reloaded onto ships). The USN for example, had a torp production of a whopping 60 per month at wars start, and only produced around 2300 in all of 1942. While expending roughly that number. The torp shortage was a serious issue for the USN. From the Japanese perspective, the number of diveable WW2 Japanese wrecks with torpedoes as part of their cargo is an indicator of how this could complicate game play.

If your game play depends on the indescriminate and unrestricted use of torpedoes...then, somewhere there's serious game mechanics issues, cuz that ain't got any connection to RL. I can't think of any torpedo attacks that originated at little fly speck atolls or jungle strips in RL. Or Japanese LB air attacks against mainland Oz ports by torpedo carrying Betties/Nells. Probably the smallest base I can think of offhand launching torp attacks was Midway. It's also interesting to note that the Japanese were building torpedo facilities at GC.




tsimmonds -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 7:28:50 PM)

The game already includes some very simple prerequisites that muct be met before ships can replenish torpedoes: "non-PT-boat surface ships may only reload torpedoes with in the hex with a size 8,9, or 10 port with sufficient supplies or in a hex with an AD ship and a base with sufficient supplies." "PT boats may only reload torpedoes when in the hex with a size 3 or larger port with at least 20,000 supplies or in a hex with an AGP ship and a base with sufficient supplies."

Ignoring for a moment the illogic of the different port size requirements, the rules otherwise make perfect sense. In my memory not one single person has ever complained about these rules; what then is the argument that would make it reasonable that any location with a level 4 airbase would have unlimited torpedoes available every day for as many aircraft as could be squeezed onto the place? It is only realistic to put some limit on this. A torpedo is a piece of machinery every bit as complex as an aircraft engine, which (in the case of IJ) must be built one by one in factories and inventories of which are carefully managed. I don't say necessarily that they should have to be built like a/c engines (although it isn't a bad idea); just that there should be some limit on availability, perhaps based on port size as in the case of PTs and of larger warships.

I just don't get it, and I play IJ. What is a reasonable argument against placing any sort of limit on the availability aerial torpedoes, which also accepts as logical that strict limits should be placed on rearming torpedoes for ships and PT boats?[sm=nono.gif]

edit: juliet7bravo, I did not read your post directly above before making this redundant post. Just adding my $0.02 to your voice of reason.



juliet7bravo -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 8:18:29 PM)

x



dtravel -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 9:14:06 PM)

Irrelevant, I don't think there would have been any problem with that kind of limitation on aerial torpedoes if it had been included in the original game design/release. I think the problems come from a) trying to retrofit it into existing code; and b) the lack of "other" game features that should logically go with it (player-selectable loadouts for example).



bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/23/2006 10:56:35 PM)

" Here's the deal, Cid. IRL there were only a relatively few allied transports sunk by torpedo carrying aircraft.

A long time ago I did some "quick and dirty" research on shipping losses and what I found was the losses of US shipping to aerial torpedo attack was far less than what we see in WITP.



OK - so what? Players may not be playing with the same operational assignments. And IF you restrict torpedo bombing to reduce transport losses, don't you also impact warship losses exactly the same way? I don't see quite what the point of this is:

IF the capability exists, what is the problem?"


DID the capability exist? I think that the disparity in the numbers between what happened IRL versus what we are seeing in WITP is significant. I also believe that it is due to a lack of tracking torpedo production. There are apparently a lot more torpedoes available in WITP than there were IRL.

Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.



juliet7bravo -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 12:01:00 AM)

"if it had been included in the original game design/release"

My own comments are directed to a possible WitP II or a WitP "Add-on" pack.

"There are apparently a lot more torpedoes available in WITP than there were IRL"

You might note that alot of the suicide boats, kaitens, and midget or small subs they planned/built were originally designed to launch torpedoes. However, due to the shortage of torpedoes alot of them were armed with a honking big explosive charge in their bows instead.

I find it curious that people impressed about the "level of detail" or "complexity" of WitP direct this appreciation to trivial BS that is generally far below, or far above a players putative "pay grade" in the game...while LOD/complexity on areas that should be well within a players (poorly defined) sphere of influence, and which directly impact the conduct of the war is derided. As Spock would say; "This does not compute".

I'd have to think that managing the distribution of a vital and limited resource such as torpedoes is far more pertinent to a players position in the game than managing the production of 47 different engines. Or worrying about whether a particular aviation unit is going to deign to fly missions on any particular day, or sleep in. Or managing the training of each and every patrol boat on a more or less daily basis. Or tracking each pilot.

LOD/compexity is good, pointless LOD/complexity is not.




Herrbear -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 2:19:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.



Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.




bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:37:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.



Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.





This is why I said that I believe the level 4 AF restriction is already good enough when people started talking about restricting torpedo missions to even larger airfields. My feeling is that there should be some additional cost for conducting torpedo missions beyond the level 4 AF restriction without just increasing the base size required.



Big B -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 5:35:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.



Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.





This is why I said that I believe the level 4 AF restriction is already good enough when people started talking about restricting torpedo missions to even larger airfields. My feeling is that there should be some additional cost for conducting torpedo missions beyond the level 4 AF restriction without just increasing the base size required.

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.

B



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 6:15:27 PM)

quote:

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.


Hmmm, if a level 6 AF would be required to lanch a torp or 4E attack then virtually all pacific island would be unusable. It could be done if damage done by the the Jap 250 KG AP bomb ( then standard naval attack ordnance) would be increased by about 150%..... If not so, allied ships become almost impossible to sink. I once hit Wasp with 10 bombs, and she remained afloat with 50 sys and 50 float damage.....



Big B -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 6:35:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

quote:

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.


Hmmm, if a level 6 AF would be required to lanch a torp or 4E attack then virtually all pacific island would be unusable. It could be done if damage done by the the Jap 250 KG AP bomb ( then standard naval attack ordnance) would be increased by about 150%..... If not so, allied ships become almost impossible to sink. I once hit Wasp with 10 bombs, and she remained afloat with 50 sys and 50 float damage.....


Well, there are a number of Pacific Islands that can be built up to level 6 air fields. I believe that includes - Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Truk, Kwajalien, Eniwitok, Tarawa, Rabaul, Lae, Palau, Midway, Pearl Harbor, Lunga, Noumea...and a number more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

My point is most of the Pacific would be within range of level 6 air fields and the heavy bombers operating on them...it would just force you to build them up and make them that much more important.

As far as the rest of the smaller Islands - you could still fly/base torpedo bombers on them - B5N Kates, TBF Avengers, etc, and Med Bmbrs can still operate off of them with bombs. You just wouldn't turn every atoll into a Betty base with torpedoes ...nor the US Army 8th air Force.

B



bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:09:25 PM)

The problem with your idea, Big B, is that it would preclude the use of torpedo armed Betties from bases from which they historically launched. This is why I believe the airbase size restriction is already fine, just that we need to add in some sort of increased supply cost/requirement to make the model more realistic.



Big B -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:24:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The problem with your idea, Big B, is that it would preclude the use of torpedo armed Betties from bases from which they historically launched. This is why I believe the airbase size restriction is already fine, just that we need to add in some sort of increased supply cost/requirement to make the model more realistic.


Well, perhaps going back to idea #2, namely to have availability of torpedoes for G4Ms and G3Ms (the only aircraft really involved here) go through the same series of checks (what? 7?) that allied LBs go through for 1000lb bombs.

That would certainly curtail torpedo availability everywhere.

B



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:24:39 PM)

Just dumbing down the torpedo and bomb accuracy while adjusting the maneuverability of ships (warships higher; merchants lower) works somewhat. The way bombs and torpedoes score it makes one wonder if the ships actually use their rudders.[:D]



treespider -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:38:34 PM)

quote:


Big B wrote:

Well, there are a number of Pacific Islands that can be built up to level 6 air fields. I believe that includes - Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Truk, Kwajalien, Eniwitok, Tarawa, Rabaul, Lae, Palau, Midway, Pearl Harbor, Lunga, Noumea...and a number more that I can't think of off the top of my head.



quote:


BradfordK wrote:

The problem with your idea, Big B, is that it would preclude the use of torpedo armed Betties from bases from which they historically launched.


What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes?



bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:40:41 PM)

Ron, aren't rudders just torpedo catchers?


Big B, I like that idea, but it isn't only Betties and Nells that we are concerned with, it's also the Beauforts (lest we be subjected to the "allied fanboy" taunt again!).



Big B -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:54:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Ron, aren't rudders just torpedo catchers?


Big B, I like that idea, but it isn't only Betties and Nells that we are concerned with, it's also the Beauforts (lest we be subjected to the "allied fanboy" taunt again!).

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about Beauforts...I never heard a complaint about "Uber Beauforts"! lol

But that (the AFB taunt/label) is why I keep linking the over represented Torpedo dropping Bettys with the same over represented Allied 4E Hvy Bmbrs.

B



bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 7:57:43 PM)

" What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes? "

You may be right. I just checked and the Nells launcing from Maleolap were armed with bombs, as were the Betties launching from Rabaul against TF3 on Feb 20 (the torpedoes had yet to arrive). I know that Rabaul is capable of being a much larger airbase, but I think that the Japanese had yet to develop it beyong L4 at that time (it's just a feeling, with no factual basis - so feel free to attack me here!)

In general, the maps are more restrictive than many of us believe. I know (from "Bloody Shambles") that allied level bombers staged out of Namlea when attacking Japanese invasion forces at Manado, and yet in the game Namlea is either a L0 or L1 (L0 on ABs map). Thus my thoughts that instead of increasing base size requirements we should be looking at increasing supply requirements...



bradfordkay -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 8:01:03 PM)

" Sorry, I wasn't thinking about Beauforts...I never heard a complaint about "Uber Beauforts"! lol"


Well, if the AI could post here, I am sure that we would have received complaints about "Uber Beauforts" after the Yamato was dispatched off Buna by my Australian air forces in one of my games...



juliet7bravo -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 8:41:56 PM)

" What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes? "

I've been looking at the same thing, and all I'm finding is Lv 6 or above capable AF's.

"Betties launching from Rabaul against TF3 on Feb 20"

Yup, and TF 3 shot down 17 of 18, and it was a severe and unpleasant shock to the Japanese to find that the planes they were placing so much faith in to protect their perimeter weren't as good as they thought.

"the torpedoes had yet to arrive"

Kinda makes the historical point about restricting torp use somehow.

"then virtually all pacific island would be unusable"

Few of the bases on the outer perimeter were "safe" from attack anyway, see above. The USN had single CV TF's raiding them as early as Jan/Feb '42. It was those places with the ability to mass LB air (the island clusters), the threat of the KB, and the USN's lack of carriers or resources that made them "usable". When the USN achieved both a qualitative and quantitative edge it was all over. With the KB gone, any place at the outer edges of LB air range was in dire jeopardy, like GC or Tarawa. Few isolated bases can put up enough air power alone to beat off a strong carrier TF if they're really determined.




ChezDaJez -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 9:49:14 PM)

quote:

What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes?


The argument that Bettys never flew from a particular base with torpedoes is invalid in my opinion. We could also apply that logic to Kates or to allied heavies that we launch from any capable base. Do we want to restrict where an aircraft can fly from with a particular load or should it be more of an availability restriction?

I don't think the issue with torpedoes or 1000lb bombs should be limited by base size. It should be limited by availability. When you stop to consider that loading a torp on a Kate is not much different from loading one on a Nell or Betty, it makes sense. The biggest difference is that the bomb bay doors must be removed on a Betty to load torps but aside from that the load crew and ground equipment required is virtually the same. Any field capable of supporting a Betty would be capable of loading torps.

The same goes for 1000lb bombs for the Allied player. The loading procedures, equipment and load crews were the same as those required for 500lb bombs. The bomb carts are identical. Any field capable of supporting heavy bomber operations should be able to carry 1000lbers. The aircraft gross weight remained within its weight limits regardless of whether it was 8-10 500lbers or 4-5 1000lbers.

I think the same should apply to PT boats and reloading their torpedoes. PT tenders certainly could load torps whenever and where ever required so long as they were in sheltered waters. Even at those bases that did not have a PT tender such as Rendova early on, PT crews were able to load torpedoes from lighters or from shore. And Rendova is a small port.

And what about Dutch minelayers? With the current base restrictions on loading mines, where do they go to reload mines without MLEs? Certainly not Dutch territory. (A little of topic but one of my peeves)

So if historical accuracy is the goal, then the ordnance itself must be limited to reflect historical production levels. And that requires a code change.

Chez



Big B -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 9:58:23 PM)

Hi Chez,

I don't think it's a matter of restricting missions from bases, I think it's just an "expedient" to try to limit over broad torpedo availability, as was done with Allied LB 1000lb AP bombs.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

What other bases did Betties launch from carrying torpedoes?


The argument that Bettys never flew from a particular base with torpedoes is invalid in my opinion. We could also apply that logic to Kates or to allied heavies that we launch from any capable base. Do we want to restrict where an aircraft can fly from with a particular load or should it be more of an availability restriction?

I don't think the issue with torpedoes or 1000lb bombs should be limited by base size. It should be limited by availability. When you stop to consider that loading a torp on a Kate is not much different from loading one on a Nell or Betty, it makes sense. The biggest difference is that the bomb bay doors must be removed on a Betty to load torps but aside from that the load crew and ground equipment required is virtually the same. Any field capable of supporting a Betty would be capable of loading torps.

The same goes for 1000lb bombs for the Allied player. The loading procedures, equipment and load crews were the same as those required for 500lb bombs. The bomb carts are identical. Any field capable of supporting heavy bomber operations should be able to carry 1000lbers. The aircraft gross weight remained within its weight limits regardless of whether it was 8-10 500lbers or 4-5 1000lbers.

I think the same should apply to PT boats and reloading their torpedoes. PT tenders certainly could load torps whenever and where ever required so long as they were in sheltered waters. Even at those bases that did not have a PT tender such as Rendova early on, PT crews were able to load torpedoes from lighters or from shore. And Rendova is a small port.

And what about Dutch minelayers? With the current base restrictions on loading mines, where do they go to reload mines without MLEs? Certainly not Dutch territory. (A little of topic but one of my peeves)

So if historical accuracy is the goal, then the ordnance itself must be limited to reflect historical production levels. And that requires a code change.

Chez





ChezDaJez -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 10:05:10 PM)

quote:

I don't think it's a matter of restricting missions from bases, I think it's just an "expedient" to try to limit over broad torpedo availability, as was done with Allied LB 1000lb AP bombs.


I understand. I just think that base size restrictions is the wrong approach.

I look at it this way... If my base meets the requirements and the opposing player comes acalling, I'm still going to be able to torp him to death or beat him severely about the head and shoulders with 1000lbers, both in unrestricted numbers. And we would then be right back to the original argument.

As both require code changes, why not go for the whole enchilada? That's MHO.

Chez



juliet7bravo -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 10:42:25 PM)

"base size restrictions"

Torpedoes require specialized care and feeding. You can't just leave them stacked outside in the weather like an iron dumb bomb. A torpedo assembly/maintenance/storage facility is an indication of a certain level of infrastructure. I haven't seen anything to indicate torpedo armed strikes were ever (but I'm still looking) launched from an AF that wasn't the equivalent to a size 6. If the shoe fits...

1000 lbs. bombs is probably being tied, again, to a certain level of cargo handling capability/infrastructure. Sure you could load an AC by brute force/manpower...once, twice ect. But to start using 1000 lbs. bombs on a regular basis means alot of increased cargo handling issues getting them off a ship, loading them onto ground transport, then transporting them to the AF, unloading them, then loading them onto a bomb cart ect. A 1000 lbs slab of steel is ALOT harder to handle than 500 lbs...it just ain't the same at all. Especially given that (most especially early war) the ground crews were undermanned, overworked, and poorly equipped. Look at the pic Brady posted with 47 grunts hand loading a big a$$ bomb onto a Japanese plane.

"requires code change"

2 new coders who've indicated a willingness to consider code changes to be implemented in some yet to be determined manner. At this point, since it's all just talking out our heinies, so why not go whole hawg?



el cid again -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 11:43:16 PM)

quote:


Nice example... but even then not all of Betty/Nell carried torpedoes - some of them carried bombs for that mission!


BTW, why was that (historically speaking)?

Was it because of lack of torpedoes (i.e. they gave torpedoes, as most dangerous weapon, only to best crews)?


Two different reasons.

First, when you go hunting, you never know what you may find?
You also cannot be sure what the effect of a weapon may be in these operational conditions? Having more than one weapon in the field is wise tactics. For example, what if sea conditions affect torpedo accuracy? What if enemy radar controlled AAA is more effective than anticipated, and torpedo bombers are not effective? What if you run into a target too shallow to attack with torpedoes - or not valuable enough to justify their use?

Second, Japan had a remarkably limited supply of torpedoes, and it may be more efficient use to mix weapons in that case. Note that it was SOP to mix torpedos and bombs when attacking carriers - and on both sides.



el cid again -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 11:46:08 PM)

quote:

Ignoring for a moment the illogic of the different port size requirements, the rules otherwise make perfect sense. In my memory not one single person has ever complained about these rules; what then is the argument that would make it reasonable that any location with a level 4 airbase would have unlimited torpedoes available every day for as many aircraft as could be squeezed onto the place? It is only realistic to put some limit on this. A torpedo is a piece of machinery every bit as complex as an aircraft engine, which (in the case of IJ) must be built one by one in factories and inventories of which are carefully managed. I don't say necessarily that they should have to be built like a/c engines (although it isn't a bad idea); just that there should be some limit on availability, perhaps based on port size as in the case of PTs and of larger warships.


Ironic that this is posted by "irrelevant" - since it may be irrelevant. Do we not have base size requirements right now for bombers? The only fighters I know of that carry torpedoes are Allied ones.



el cid again -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 11:48:16 PM)

quote:

OK - so what? Players may not be playing with the same operational assignments. And IF you restrict torpedo bombing to reduce transport losses, don't you also impact warship losses exactly the same way? I don't see quite what the point of this is:

IF the capability exists, what is the problem?"


DID the capability exist?


Speaking purely in naval-technical terms: no doubt about it.

You don't think planes can sink ships with torpedoes?

IF you tell them to try, you are bound to get some hits on anything in range.

IRL admirals don't send transports in range of enemy torpedo planes - if they can help it. IRL enemy players who know they can engage with a less powerful weapon may not arm with torpedoes either. We cannot play that way - so we don't. You are trying to micromanage a very simple engine.



el cid again -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 11:53:04 PM)

quote:

As far as the rest of the smaller Islands - you could still fly/base torpedo bombers on them - B5N Kates, TBF Avengers, etc, and Med Bmbrs can still operate off of them with bombs. You just wouldn't turn every atoll into a Betty base with torpedoes ...nor the US Army 8th air Force


Which would be wrong. IF you want to think like real admirals did.
The critical question is what base do we take next - or defend?
Rendering the bases out of bounds means the whole campaign becomes - what - a contest of carriers? And you can fly a B-17 out of a level four base - and a Betty out of a level 3. IRL.



el cid again -> RE: Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks... (4/24/2006 11:54:26 PM)

quote:

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about Beauforts...I never heard a complaint about "Uber Beauforts"! lol

But that (the AFB taunt/label) is why I keep linking the over represented Torpedo dropping Bettys with the same over represented Allied 4E Hvy Bmbrs.


There is also the F7F. Carries a torpedo it does.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125