The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (Full Version)

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

Message

Feinder -> The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:12:38 PM)
That they only put forth 2 or 3 examples that have frustrated them. They don't bother to post every action that PTs have been involved in, in their game. So here goes. Good or ill. This is every action that PTs have participated in, in my game vs. LtFightr. This is Dec '41. Nothing unusual thus far. They managed to surprise a single invasion TF with "good" results, torp into a transport, and a torp into a PC. The rest of the time, they've been fodder... Am compiling Jan '41, while I wait for my turn. I have results for every turn, up to our current turn in mid-July '42. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Cagayan at 42,59 Japanese Ships PG Oi Maru PG Takunan Maru #3 PG Tamo Maru #6 PG Tamo Maru #7 AP Kaisho Maru AP Karimo Maru AP Kinjosan Maru AP Kiyoshima Maru AP Kureha Maru #3 AP Taganoura Maru AP Michiyu Maru AP Rozan Maru Allied Ships PT PT-33, Shell hits 23, and is sunk PT PT-41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 44,55 Japanese Ships AP Tatuwa Maru, Shell hits 56, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Allied Ships PT PT-31 PT PT-32 PT PT-34 PT PT-35 PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Iloilo at 42,56 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-34, Shell hits 4 PT PT-31, Shell hits 4 PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Roxas at 42,55 Japanese Ships PC Gamitsu Maru #1 PC Showa Maru #5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Atsuta Maru AK Ehime Maru AP Heiwa Maru AP Horai Maru, Torpedo hits 1 Allied Ships PT PT-31 PT PT-32 PT PT-34 PT PT-35 PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Iloilo at 42,56 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-35, Shell hits 4 PT PT-31, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tagbalarin at 43,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-35, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 3 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-41 PT PT-34 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese Ships CL Natori CL Yura CL Kinu CL Kitakami DD Shiratsuyu DD Ariake DD Satsuki DD Minazuki DD Fumizuki DD Nagatsuki DD Harukaze DD Hatakaze DD Minekaze DD Yakaze DD Yukaze DD Nokaze DD Namikaze DD Numakaze DD Kuri DD Tsuga DD Hasu DD Wakatake Allied Ships PT PT-32, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT PT-34, Shell hits 5, and is sunk PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-48 PT PT-41, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged Allied Ships PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 PT PT-41, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Sendai CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8 PT TM-9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 44,66 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 5 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 PT PT-41, Shell hits 12, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 1 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet 4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Sendai CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT TM-9

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:24:45 PM)
January sees quite a few naval battles vs. PTs. The PTs are 1-4 in Januarly. They sink 1x DD, and lose 9 of their own. Not very remarkable (unless you fixate on the first battle) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 25,58 Japanese Ships BB Haruna CA Takao CA Atago CL Jintsu DD Asashio DD Oshio, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage DD Michishio DD Arashio DD Akatsuki, Torpedo hits 1, on fire DD Hibiki DD Usugumo DD Hatsuyuki DD Uranami DD Sagiri DD Akikaze Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT TM-9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 25,58 Japanese Ships BB Haruna CA Takao CA Atago CL Jintsu DD Asashio DD Michishio DD Arashio DD Hibiki DD Usugumo DD Hatsuyuki DD Uranami DD Sagiri DD Akikaze Allied Ships PT TM-4, Shell hits 28, and is sunk PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Pontianak at 25,58 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-5, Shell hits 33, and is sunk PT TM-6, Shell hits 5, and is sunk PT TM-9, Shell hits 4, and is sunk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Batavia at 19,59 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-10 PT TM-11, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT TM-12 PT TM-13 PT TM-14, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT TM-15, Shell hits 3, and is sunk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 22,65 Japanese Ships BB Nagato BB Mutsu BB Yamashiro CA Haguro DD Yugure DD Okikaze Allied Ships PT TM-10, Shell hits 3, and is sunk PT TM-12 PT TM-13

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:32:40 PM)
Oops. The "PT menace" are0-2 in February, and lose 2 more of thier own. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 22,65 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Isuzu DD Maikaze, Shell hits 1 DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki, on fire, heavy damage DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-12 PT TM-13, Shell hits 3, and is sunk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Soerabaja at 22,65 Japanese Ships BB Mutsu CA Haguro DD Okikaze Allied Ships PT TM-12, Shell hits 5, and is sunk

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:38:40 PM)
March shows no PT activity. Probably has a lot to do with a lack of bases, and a lack of PTs. -F-

rtrapasso -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:41:05 PM)
Feinder - this is very similar to stuff i see. i agree - by "quoting" one case, you can make things look VERY lopsided.

KDonovan -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 10:48:24 PM)
i'll chime in with my results from my PBEM game...now in May 1943 63 PT - sunk for 2 Jap DD - sunk 2-4 Jap DD - damaged seems fair to me (btw not one of my PT's were sunk by aerial strafing...all surface engagements)

pauk -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder That they only put forth 2 or 3 examples that have frustrated them. They don't bother to post every action that PTs have been involved in, in their game. So here goes. Good or ill. This is every action that PTs have participated in, in my game vs. LtFightr. This is Dec '41. Nothing unusual thus far. They managed to surprise a single invasion TF with "good" results, torp into a transport, and a torp into a PC. The rest of the time, they've been fodder... Am compiling Jan '41, while I wait for my turn. I have results for every turn, up to our current turn in mid-July '42. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Cagayan at 42,59 Japanese Ships PG Oi Maru PG Takunan Maru #3 PG Tamo Maru #6 PG Tamo Maru #7 AP Kaisho Maru AP Karimo Maru AP Kinjosan Maru AP Kiyoshima Maru AP Kureha Maru #3 AP Taganoura Maru AP Michiyu Maru AP Rozan Maru Allied Ships PT PT-33, Shell hits 23, and is sunk PT PT-41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Legaspi at 44,55 Japanese Ships AP Tatuwa Maru, Shell hits 56, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk Allied Ships PT PT-31 PT PT-32 PT PT-34 PT PT-35 PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Iloilo at 42,56 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-34, Shell hits 4 PT PT-31, Shell hits 4 PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Roxas at 42,55 Japanese Ships PC Gamitsu Maru #1 PC Showa Maru #5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AP Atsuta Maru AK Ehime Maru AP Heiwa Maru AP Horai Maru, Torpedo hits 1 Allied Ships PT PT-31 PT PT-32 PT PT-34 PT PT-35 PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Iloilo at 42,56 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-35, Shell hits 4 PT PT-31, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tagbalarin at 43,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-35, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 3 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-32 PT PT-41 PT PT-34 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese Ships CL Natori CL Yura CL Kinu CL Kitakami DD Shiratsuyu DD Ariake DD Satsuki DD Minazuki DD Fumizuki DD Nagatsuki DD Harukaze DD Hatakaze DD Minekaze DD Yakaze DD Yukaze DD Nokaze DD Namikaze DD Numakaze DD Kuri DD Tsuga DD Hasu DD Wakatake Allied Ships PT PT-32, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT PT-34, Shell hits 5, and is sunk PT PT-41 PT PT-48 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-48 PT PT-41, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF, near Tacloban at 44,58 Japanese aircraft Ki-27 Nate x 10 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged Allied Ships PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 PT PT-41, Shell hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet 4 x Ki-27 Nate attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Sendai CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8 PT TM-9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Air attack on TF at 44,66 Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 5 No Japanese losses Allied Ships PT PT-48, Shell hits 4 PT PT-41, Shell hits 12, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage Aircraft Attacking: 1 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet 4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Singkawang at 25,57 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CL Sendai CL Isuzu DD Maikaze DD Nowaki DD Arashi DD Fubuki DD Shinonome DD Shirakumo DD Isonami DD Shirayuki DD Murakumo DD Shikinami DD Ayanami DD Asagiri DD Amagiri DD Kasasagi DD Hayabusa DD Kari DD Kiji DD Kamo Allied Ships PT TM-4 PT TM-5 PT TM-6 PT TM-7 PT TM-8, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT TM-9 ok, lets do a simple maths.... three PTs are sunk (3 VP) and three more are heavily damaged and will sink ... that makes it 6 VP or one old jap DD... They heavily damaged 1 AP (ok not a big deal, but still 5 VP) and one PC (3-5 VP).. so lets assume this is a draw, right... I'm bit suprised that you compare these two things, because you did play Jap side and you know how many DDs Japan recives... so, while Allies have enourmous pool of cheap, expendable PTs every DD lost is a disaster for the Japan (i won't go into details and disclose how much Jap side loosing with ordering figters in the naval attack while these fighers are needed for the defence (against B-17 in the december 41!) or escort....

pauk -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder January sees quite a few naval battles vs. PTs. The PTs are 1-4 in Januarly. They sink 1x DD, and lose 9 of their own. Not very remarkable (unless you fixate on the first battle) Damn, what tragedy for the Allies... sorry but can not help myself.... who needs these low experienced, short legged "ships".. i bet every player would trade even 20 PTs for the one Jap DD... seriously, just imagine the outcome when Allies starts reciving PTs with 60+ exp and radar.....

pauk -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Oops. The "PT menace" are0-2 in February, and lose 2 more of thier own. Cant help myself again... but do you think you can live without these two PTs?

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:50:24 PM)
Got a turn, it took precedence.. :) April is another unremarkable month for PTs. Hm. A patter is emerging...? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Akyab at 30,29 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma CA Suzuya CA Kumano CA Aoba DD Shirayuki DD Matsukaze Allied Ships PT PT-36 PT PT-37 PT PT-38 PT PT-40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese Ships PT Gyoraitei #2 PT Gyoraitei #3, Shell hits 4, and is sunk PT Gyoraitei #4 PT Gyoraitei #5 PT Gyoraitei #6 Allied Ships DD Dent DD Kennison -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese Ships PT Gyoraitei #2 PT Gyoraitei #4, Shell hits 5, and is sunk PT Gyoraitei #5, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage PT Gyoraitei #6 Allied Ships DD Dent DD Kennison -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Akyab at 30,29 Japanese Ships CA Chokai CA Mogami CA Mikuma, Shell hits 2 CA Suzuya CA Kumano CA Aoba Allied Ships PT PT-36 PT PT-37 PT PT-38 PT PT-40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 67,97 Japanese Ships PT Gyoraitei #2, Shell hits 2, and is sunk PT Gyoraitei #5, Shell hits 8, and is sunk PT Gyoraitei #6, Shell hits 1 Allied Ships CL Raleigh CL Marblehead DD Anderson DD Hammann -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Baker Island at 94,92 Japanese Ships CA Maya CA Myoko CA Nachi CA Ashigara CL Jintsu CL Kinu DD Asashio, Shell hits 1 DD Arashio DD Natsugumo, Shell hits 1 DD Yamagumo DD Minegumo, Shell hits 3 DD Asagumo DD Murasame DD Harusame DD Yudachi DD Samidare DD Suzukaze DD Ariake DD Ikazuchi DD Inazuma DD Oboro DD Akebono DD Sazanami DD Ushio DD Kisaragi Allied Ships PT PT-20, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT PT-21 PT PT-22, Shell hits 1, and is sunk PT PT-23

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:52:29 PM)
Big picture Pauk. You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth. What's over-all score card? Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP? -F-

Bobthehatchit -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/2/2006 11:58:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Big picture Pauk. You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth. What's over-all score card? Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP? -F- The only real beef with PT's is when you get more than two PT boat TF stacked at a base. Its war **** happens.

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 12:03:59 AM)
Gotta go pick up chicken wings for the SEC championship. Will finish this later... :^) -F-

Andy Mac -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 12:12:38 AM)
Pauk has had a particularily bad experience against me in my game with him - the PT Boats that start in the PI led a charmed life for about 6 weeks and had xp in the 90's it REALLY cost Pauk to take the 8 - 10 PT Boats I had they were especially usefull in finishing off cripples arounf Kendari/Amboina after my heavies and DD's went in. I was severely jammy with them always hitting the unescorted Ak's and MSW's it was great fun !!!! I think he eventually got them with damn near half the IJN at Timor !!!! After that we really had no action involving PT's until they started appearing in New Guinea at which point I have radar and upgraded weapon fit outs and decent xp.

pauk -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 12:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Big picture Pauk. You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth. What's over-all score card? Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP? -F- Ok, I'm guilty.... i'm ignoring the simple truth... perhaps when i will calm down and count all my DDs sunk and badly damaged by PTs i will found that i lost only 10-15 DDs for a 80 PTs. Do some math.... Ah, btw, did i mention that PTs are extremely cheap and available in hordes. Same as Japanese DDs.... [8\|] Yes i'm focusing on Surigao strait and 39 PTs - these ships equipped with fine radar really decimated Jap TF.... [8\|]... lets talk about ignoring....[8\|]

niceguy2005 -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 12:53:35 AM)
I agree 100% with Feinder's statement that overall PTs aren't nearly as effective as people claim. I'd have to look but in my PBEM I probably lost something like 15-20 while only claiming one DD. I even sent 4 PTs after 3 MSW and all 4 were sunk. [:(] There are other things to consider: 1. players can drastically reduce any problems PTs cause by eliminating gamey play from their games. Things like 50 PTs in a hex or sending PTs on long range strikes, etc. Create ground rules about where they can be created, etc. IMO when used under realistic circumsatnces they give realistic results. 2. It's all about tactics. I swear I get tired of the JFBs complaining just because some allied player dared make their life a little difficult. I can't recall who it was but some player posted a while ago about how when he sent in 4 DDs to attack 6PTs he would lose a destroyer. He would do this again and again and again. When asked why he didn't strafe the PT boats instead there was no answer. This game is about finding ways to overcome your opponents tactics, not whinning about them. IMO the PT boat scurge isn't nearly the problem that the UBER Betty/Nell ship hunter/killer is. The idea that Japan had some super weapon that could fly 800+ miles in any direction with massive numbers of torpedos and sink capital ships, sometimes with only 1-2 hits, is pure fantasy. I don't really complain about it though I find a tactic to deal with it.

pauk -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 1:38:27 AM)
ok, i gave up... i'm here long enough to know how the things going.... everything what doesn't suite AFB - foul, uber Nells, betties... etc.... a thread with 190 pages, numerous posts with historical examples and "proves", demanding tweaking Uber Japanese etc..... when, on the other side, Jap player offers arguments, examples from his game, AFB says to him, "not true" ignoring all historical arguments he offered (yes guys, SURIGAO STRAIT, AND PLEASE CAN SOMEONE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT THE RADAR ON PTS - doesn't matter, i'm not interested anymore, just want to say that i dont buy empty stories!) Ok, you are right... but please don't try to start discussion when you find yourself in the position to defend PH, Karachi or Australia.... please[&o] Oh, yes, do people really reads what is written here...? how to strafe enemy PTs/barges if they are under CAP umbrella?[8\|]

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 1:49:33 AM)
I just get tired of 10% of the people using 1% of the game to make 90% of the noise. Look at "the other" thread. Is he willing to post EVERY PT action, win or lose? Doubt it. It's just here's 3 actions from one game, where PTs won, and suddenly the whole blanket of PTs is a menace that that destroys Japan. That thread -is- blatently a "JFB thread". Unlike the "other thread", this one is pure objective evidence. I'm just posting the EVERY PT ACTION OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS. You draw your own conclusions. If you still think PTs are over-powered when they show 25 PTs lost thus far, vs. 1x DD and and transport, that's your perrogative. It begs the question of what you would consider balanced? 100 PTs lost to 1x DD? What sort of evidence of this in-game or gawd forbid, historical evidence, can you offer? -F-

ctangus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 1:54:35 AM)
Late May '43. (May 42 start so about 13 months of war.) I've lost 156 PTs! Mostly to surface action though a few to strafing. My opponent (viberpol) is quite aggressive with surface combat. Per the ships sunk list, the Mk 8 torp which the PTs carry have sunk 1 DD, 1 MSW, 2 PC & 1 AK. Not on that list, they have also done very well against barges. (They've probably sunk 20 or more.) I don't think anyone would argue that they shouldn't do well against barges. They've damaged a few ships too. Maybe another half dozen ships (DDs or smaller) were damaged by PTs and later sunk by LBA. I don't remember for sure. They've probably also damaged another 1-2 dozen ships that did survive. Not counting the barges I'm losing at least 13 PTs (if not 26!) for every ship they help sink in that game. Different game (my AAR game) - June '42, Dec '41 start. 6 1/2 months of war. I've lost 12 PTs. They've sunk 1 MSW, 1 PC, 2 AK, 2 AP. I'm only losing 2 PTs for every ship they sink. Limited sample size, though, as there hasn't been a lot of combat with PT boats involved. My impression is that on average PT boat performance is more-or-less realistic. But perhaps the performance is a little too random, resulting in skewed results in some games.

Knavey -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 1:56:04 AM)
Now now now...don't get rational bro...stick with the fiction not the facts! [sm=Evil-210.gif]

Fishbed -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 5:15:13 AM)
quote: My impression is that on average PT boat performance is more-or-less realistic. But perhaps the performance is a little too random, resulting in skewed results in some games. Maybe the question is to know HOW to use them to make the results look like realistic - size of TF, limitation of the number of TFs, etc... [:)] This and the fact that, as PzB's experience show it, there are simply too many PTs, leading the Allied player using them (and losing them) at will while in real, Allied command was much more conservative because of the lack of units at their disposal (or the first batch of PTs at Tulagi would have been a little bigger than a mere two boats group...), not to mention the fact that having PTs in the area didn't always mean that any TF would get engaged, especially before they get fit with a radar (while in WitP, they will rarely miss a fight). As Pauk and Andy mentionned it, the PI boats and the 1943 stuff don't have a lot in common anyway - the radar fitted ones are somewhat more dangerous, to say the least...

Fishbed -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 5:24:57 AM)
I'll add that one of the main complaints about the PTs is their power of disruption when facing an enemy force. They got treated as a combat round like any other, and most of the time the following bombardement by the IJN ships is just laughable because there's no time left for it. There is nothing like the tense of having Henderson Field wiped out if you can manage to have only even half a dozen PTs waiting for any Jap TF there. 2x3 PTs, multiplying the combat round, will make a bombardement attempt fail as well as Scott and Callaghan did with a dozen cruisers and destroyers, and for a cheaper price... In the real word, you couldn't even be sure that the PTs would make contact with anything else that the outer outer outer screen against such a huge force, the big guys shouldn't even get concerned and disturbed in their mission while their escort is being engaged my pesky little pests! They are a game-tension-killer to me, and when if I am to play allied in my first Pbem, no way I'll use them more, in a different way and for something other than historically. I don't want to feel like robbing the IJN player from victory [:-]

m10bob -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 5:31:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Big picture Pauk. You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth. What's over-all score card? Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP? -F- If a single DD is sunk against 10-20 PT's, this seems acceptable. In WW I, the full name of the DD was actually "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"..The Destroyer was invented specifically to counter torpedo boats, (not other destroyers.) The DD proved very versatile and their main guns later were given protective armor, and even later, armoured turrets. IMHO, the PT's are not "over-powerful", and if a single DD is lost each turn for a week,(with losses of 5, 10, 15 PT's), this is still not proof of PT's being too powerful. While several DD's might be lost, PT boat attrition will eventually have an area cleared of PT's... The fact DD production might be a limited commodity should not be a consideration for determining the PT effectiveness, but might make the owners of the DD's seek another (less costly) means to counter them?? The Japanese have scads of PC's,PG's, MSW's, etc....

Fishbed -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 6:56:39 AM)
quote: The fact DD production might be a limited commodity should not be a consideration for determining the PT effectiveness, but might make the owners of the DD's seek another (less costly) means to counter them?? The Japanese have scads of PC's,PG's, MSW's, etc.... Yes sure, next time Pauk goes for Dobadura or Buna, he'd better send a uber-PG task force clear up the mess and wreak havoc the PT armada [:D] [;)] Finding a totally akward solution to counter another akward situation doesn't sound good to me... [:(] The PTs SHOULD be a limited commodity as much as Japanese DD are... [8D]

bradfordkay -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 7:27:02 AM)
I believe that PTs are a limited commodity, in that they are available only in historic numbers. Are you arguing that they should be ahistorically limited?

Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 7:45:40 AM)
quote: The PTs SHOULD be a limited commodity as much as Japanese DD are I'm not following you. PTs -ARE- a limited quanity. Frankly, I don't know how many there were in the Pacific, and I agree that only those that were actually in the pacific should be represented. If you look in the editor. Each PT has a unite slot, and unique arrival date in the editor. According to the manual, the only ships that respawn are Barges and MSWs. PTs do not (unless a dev would like to confirm or deny this). They are not unlimited. I'll finish up the "to date" list of the not-so-remarkable-but-are-somehow-still-considered-the-scourge-of-the-Pacific-menace-known-as-PTs list of battles tomorrow. -F-

Fishbed -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 8:24:36 AM)
Well then maybe we should make the difference between their availability date in San Diego and their actual availability in the theater. Maybe the arrival dates are the building or release date of the ships, but that most of the time there were not available in NG or the Solomons before 2 other months or so, while right now they can get generated way too freely... Anyway it can be simulated in game by generating the PTs far away and get them manually to their deployment location with a nurse AK. I think it should be a rule until late 1943 or 1944, and I'll play like that. quote: I believe that PTs are a limited commodity, in that they are available only in historic numbers. Are you arguing that they should be ahistorically limited? I am arguing that if they are limited, they are not historically limited well yet then. A topic like that http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1170768&mpage=1&key=elco dealt with the issues already. Personally I don't care, as I said before, I will play with my own rules when I am allied, and I'll wait for my opponents to play the same way if ever I am to play Japanese. Things like the theater availability can be simulated in game. A check on the OOB should be done too, but Im pretty sure it was done before already, can't find the topic. The only important issue next to this is the durability of the PTs (who can survive canon a little too much) and the power of their own guns (which may wreck havoc a Jap DD with 3 or 4 (too) lucky shots). But apart from that... Maybe the capability of their radar may get a little tuned down too? (don't about that, if it can be done...?)

bradfordkay -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 8:33:17 AM)
There's also an issue with the durability of AKs and APs. Take a look at how many bombs those vessels can absorb in WITP. Like Feinder, I look at the overall feel of the game. I just don't see PTS as any more unbalancing than any other units in the game.

aztez -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 9:08:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder I just get tired of 10% of the people using 1% of the game to make 90% of the noise. Look at "the other" thread. Is he willing to post EVERY PT action, win or lose? Doubt it. It's just here's 3 actions from one game, where PTs won, and suddenly the whole blanket of PTs is a menace that that destroys Japan. That thread -is- blatently a "JFB thread". Unlike the "other thread", this one is pure objective evidence. I'm just posting the EVERY PT ACTION OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS. You draw your own conclusions. If you still think PTs are over-powered when they show 25 PTs lost thus far, vs. 1x DD and and transport, that's your perrogative. It begs the question of what you would consider balanced? 100 PTs lost to 1x DD? What sort of evidence of this in-game or gawd forbid, historical evidence, can you offer? -F- Totally agree with you. I have 2 PBEM's heading into late 1944 and PT's are pretty much working as they should. Neither player nor me have complained about them. Mostly they don't hit anything and these are just guarding some of the more minor bases. There are far more important things that are off with Witp and PT boats aren't one of those issues.

Andy Mac -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 10:19:42 AM)
OK this is a bit rich I would not quote form PZB's game versus me for the use of PT Boats Remember 2 things. 1. India is shut down depriving me of the RN which is a far more 'game breaking' iosue than PT Boats ever were and 2. In 1943 I had almost no operational surface units almost no BB's and barely enought Cruisers to screen my CV TF's and was severely short of DD's - PT Boats were being used as quasi DDis in and around New Guine/New Britain because they were ALL I had and let us not forget PZB liked to bombard a LOT. No complaints but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So please dont use that game to support either side of this argument quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed quote: My impression is that on average PT boat performance is more-or-less realistic. But perhaps the performance is a little too random, resulting in skewed results in some games. Maybe the question is to know HOW to use them to make the results look like realistic - size of TF, limitation of the number of TFs, etc... [:)] This and the fact that, as PzB's experience show it, there are simply too many PTs, leading the Allied player using them (and losing them) at will while in real, Allied command was much more conservative because of the lack of units at their disposal (or the first batch of PTs at Tulagi would have been a little bigger than a mere two boats group...), not to mention the fact that having PTs in the area didn't always mean that any TF would get engaged, especially before they get fit with a radar (while in WitP, they will rarely miss a fight). As Pauk and Andy mentionned it, the PI boats and the 1943 stuff don't have a lot in common anyway - the radar fitted ones are somewhat more dangerous, to say the least...

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375