TORPEX warheads

TORPEX warheads (Full Version)

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

Message

CJ Martin -> TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 1:19:07 PM)
As part of my continuing (and no doubt never ending) research for my 1943 mod, I've learned that from mid-1943 on, USN torpedos, depth charges and hedgehog warheads used TORPEX instead of TNT as the explosive. Looking at the devices, it seems WitP used the amount of TNT for the "effect" of a warhead. Since TORPEX is 50% more powerful than TNT, shouldn't the '"effect" be increased as a result? It doesn't look like stock or CHS models this - does RHS? Aside from the 1943 Mk13/14/15 USN torpedos and the Mk9 depth charge, what other devices in the game should be changed? I've seen references that british torpedos also used TORPEX (makes sense, they invented the stuff) which were also used in the Dutch subs later in the war. Would this be the Mk VIII's only? What about british depth charges? Lastly, what about hedgehog warheads? -CJ

Terminus -> RE: TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 1:53:16 PM)
According to navweaps.com, Hedgehog used Torpex, as did Mousetrap. Squid used Minol.

el cid again -> RE: TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 2:17:58 PM)
This is a can of technical worms - and you would spend the rest of your life trying to get it right. The problem is that almost NO ONE is using TNT as such as a weapons charge. LOTS of different things are used - and they ALL would have to be identified and pro rated. That is just the beginning: next you should model the fact that a bigger boom does not do proportionately more damage - nor a smaller one proportionately less. We are doing this part in RHS for bombs and shells - and also distinguishing between HE and AP - but only as generics. We use the weight of the weapon as the basis - because it is easy to get. Getting the chemistry is hard. And that CHANGES over time - each change requiring a new device. We lack the slots to play this game in WITP I. It is unfair to give it to one side and not the other too. [In general Japan has fewer slots - and this is a severe problem for many things already]. Joe says "we can do anything but we cannot do everything." He is right. Make your priority list. Accept we cannot do anything below a certain line on the list. Worse, doing more for line one hurts things below line 6 (or whatever) slot wise. When you consider this and the research required - it is not a good thing to be doing in the present regime. Now next year - when we have WITP II - the slot part may change. And it will take you until then at least to get the data - and you will not get 15 or 25 per cent of it. The present system is at least fair - weight is known and obtainable. Also - frankly - going down the technical tricks road may benefit the other side more than your own. There is a line from Ice Station Zebra which - while fiction - is based on a germ of truth: "Your German scientists made the camera. Our German scientists made the film. The Soviet's German scientists made the rocket which put the whole shebang in in orbet." We spent decades copying and developing the technical things we learned from the enemy. And sometimes we blew it: we just "knew" the Japanese were not as good at modern, high speed subs as the Germans were. So we sank em every one. Norman Polmar writes this was a boo boo- the Japanese designs were "based on superior hydrodynamic research" and were not, like the German designs, dangerous in underwater stability. There is a wonderful photograph in Submarines Since World War II of a US sub with a German sonar from Prinz Eugen wrapped around her conning tower (it is white and stands out) - and we use the concepts we learned from it to this day. The Prinz could detect PASSIVELY targets at great distances - and at speeds our sonar was worthless at. The first battleship - in fact the ONLY battleship - to be sunk by a missile was sunk by a GERMAN missile DURING WWII! If you introduced such torpedoes for the Allies you might be opening yourself to adding the exotic torpedoes for the enemy. If you did not, it would not be a balanced add in. Modding is above all an art of compromises in trade offs. And the most severe issue is resource limitations - we call a lot of these "slots" in WITP. Others are "how many rows can the map have" - stuff like that. There is no perfect solution - and there are many acceptable solutions - but there are even more poor solutions. When what you want to do is based ONLY on knowledge of one narrow thing on one side, you are not likely to make the compromises well. You need to become equally expert on ALL sides - that means Russian stuff too - and Thai - all of it - and then think in terms of how to do this fairly and in a balanced way - not only balanced in play terms - but in resource terms. Is it worth losing x devices from something else? Only if you can say yes to that is something a good idea.

Terminus -> RE: TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 2:43:46 PM)
At the risk of sounding like I agree with el Cid about anything, this might be more work than it's worth.

Mike Scholl -> RE: TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 3:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus At the risk of sounding like I agree with el Cid about anything, this might be more work than it's worth. Especially as it can, and to some extent, is already modeled in the increasing ASW numbers and modifier Allied ships recieve in the game. Definately a candidate to be left out.

CJ Martin -> RE: TORPEX warheads (10/2/2006 6:50:54 PM)
While I haven't checked all the "effect" numbers, I know the Mk14 torpedo warhead effect matches up exactly the size of the TNT warhead. Seems like it would be pretty straightforward to adjust the torp warheads. The TORPEX warheads were found to be quite a bit more powerful and effective than the TNT warheads. As for the ASW weapons, point taken. -CJ

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375