RE: 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 -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 9:18:42 PM)

And last but not least. Game date is July 23rd. No actions with PTs in July thus far.

-F-



Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 9:44:34 PM)

And finally, here is the loss screen as of 07-23-42.
25 Allied PTs + 6 IJN PTs sunk, total of 31 boats lost thus far.
In return for sinking an AP, PC, and DD.

The RDN PTs use the 450mm torpedo, along with the RDN subs.
You can see from the egagements, only the Oshio was engaged by PTs,
the rest of the ships listed as killed by 450mm torpedos were sunk by RDN subs.

I have yet to see the menace that folks squawk about.
But this game has a ways to go. We'll see.





[image]local://upfiles/7554/83D0DE3B1E944202A0239262A72A211D.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 11:29:00 PM)

Oooooh, what overpowered PT-boats...



Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 11:40:56 PM)

It is probably fair to say on behalf of JFBs tho, that I do not employ my PTs in what many would consider "gamey".  My PTs TFs are no more than 6 boats, usually only 4, and not more than 2x TFs per hex (not like I have that many PTs to begin with at this point in the war).  In differrence to the JFBs, if somebody stacked 2x 25 boat TFs in hex, I would probably take issue with it as well.

But when employed "reasonably" you get "reasonable" results.

(* shrug *)

-F-



Terminus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 11:54:54 PM)

Some people just can't get through the day without a good whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine...[8|]



Speedysteve -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 11:55:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

... IS DUMB OR A FANBOY!


I'm dumbass!
[;)][:D]


Agreed[:'(][;)]



Terminus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/3/2006 11:56:12 PM)

The biggest PT task force I've ever fielded had 8 boats in it, IIRC.

If you see somebody put 1*50 PT's (or 50*1, for that matter) into a hex, tell him politely not to. If he won't, stop playing him.



Big B -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 12:09:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The biggest PT task force I've ever fielded had 8 boats in it, IIRC.

If you see somebody put 1*50 PT's (or 50*1, for that matter) into a hex, tell him politely not to. If he won't, stop playing him.

I agree completely, unless your playing a 'lunacy game' where everything goes - keep unit composition in historical bounds. [;)]



wild_Willie2 -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 12:14:56 AM)

I think that a max number of 6 PT's per hex is quite reasonable
At least that is the max number I "require" my opponent to "agree" to for me even to start a game  [;)]

I have fought against 12+ PT boat TF's and then you will get 3-4 battle rounds with those PT's. If you are unlucky this will cost you at least 1-2 DD's...



niceguy2005 -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 12:52:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Some people just can't get through the day without a good whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine...[8|]

I prefer mine with a good bree.



Big B -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 12:59:03 AM)

The more I look into history of PT Boat losses - the more it seems to me that any unbalance is against PT Boat Survival.

With Japanese players posting PT Boat kills running over 100, I don't think PT's are overpowered.

NOTE: I am still looking for a record of PT Boat kills for the war.


Here is the complete list of PT Boat losses for the entire war:

http://www.ptboats.org/20-12-05-trivia-001.html

Out of 531 PTs placed in US Navy service, 69 were lost: 5 - destroyed by enemy surface ship gunfire; 1 - rammed by enemy ship; 1 - rammed enemy ship; 1 - enemy aircraft strafing; 4 - enemy bombings; 2 - kamikaze attacks; 5 - enemy shore batteries; 4 - enemy mines; 1 - damaged by enemy fire then destroyed; 2 - lost in transit, tanker torpedoed by enemy. Total: 26 lost by enemy action.

Additional losses: 18 - grounded in enemy waters and destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed to prevent capture; 3 - destroyed by US aircraft; 2 - destroyed by Australian aircraft; 2 - destroyed by US ships; 1 - destroyed by enemy shore fire or wild shot from US warship; 5 - grounded/destroyed outside enemy waters or in storms; 6 - fire or explosion in port; 3 - collisions. Total: 43 lost by accidents, friendly fire or sea conditions.

Above figures do not include fates of Lend-Lease boats.
------------------------------------------------------------
PT BOAT DATA
PT Boats War Time Loses

LEGEND:

A = Destroyed as a result of accident
D = Destroyed to prevent capture or Friendly-Fire
E = Destroyed as a direct result of enemy action


A PT 22 Damaged in storm/Scrapped 01-12-1943
A PT 28 Wrecked in storm 01-12-1943
D PT 31 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 01-19-1942
D PT 32 Destroyed to prevent capture 03-13-1942
D PT 33 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 12-26-1941
E PT 34 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (Strafing) 04-09-1942
D PT 35 Destroyed to prevent capture 04-12-1942
E PT 37 Destroyed by enemy warship 02-01-1943
D PT 41 Destroyed to prevent capture 04-15-1942
E PT 43 Damaged by enemy warship/Destroyed to prevent capture 01-11-1943
E PT 44 Destroyed by enemy warship 12-12-1942
A PT 63 Destroyed by fire in port 06-18-1944
A PT 67 Destroyed by fire in port 04-17-1943
D PT 68 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 10-01-1943
D PT 73 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 01-15-1945
D PT 77 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire U.S. Warship 02-01-1945
D PT 79 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire U.S. Warship 02-01-1945
A PT 107 Destroyed by fire in port 06-18-1944
E PT 109 Destroyed when rammed by enemy warship 08-02-1943
A PT 110 Lost in collision 02-26-1944
E PT 111 Destroyed by enemy warship 02-01-1943
E PT 112 Destroyed by enemy warship 01-11-1943
D PT 113 Destroyed as a result of grounding 08-08-1943
E PT 117 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (Bombing) 08-01-1943
D PT 118 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 09-07-1943
D PT 119 Destroyed by fire in port 03-17-1943
D PT 121 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire Australian aircraft 03-27-1944
E PT 123 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (Bombing) 02-01-1943
E PT 133 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries 07-15-1944
D PT 135 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 04-12-1944
D PT 136 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 09-17-1943
D PT 145 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 02-04-1944
D PT 147 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 11-20-1943
D PT 153 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 07-04-1943
D PT 158 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 07-05-1943
E PT 164 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (Bombing) 08-01-1943
A PT 165 Lost in transit, tanker torpedoed 05-24-1943
D PT 166 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire U.S. aircraft 07-20-1943
D PT 172 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 09-07-1943
D PT 173 Lost in transit, tanker torpedoed 05-24-1943
D PT 193 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 06-25-1944
A PT 200 Lost after collision 02-22-1944
E PT 202 Destroyed by enemy mine 08-16-1944
E PT 218 Destroyed by enemy mine 08-16-1944
A PT 219 Damaged in storm and scrapped 09-14-1943
A PT 239 Destroyed by fire in port 12-14-1943
E PT 247 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries 05-05-1943
E PT 251 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries 02-26-1944
A PT 279 Lost in collision 02-12-1944
E PT 283 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries or Friendly-Fire 03-19-1944
E PT 300 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (suicide attack) 12-18-1944
A PT 301 Damaged by explosion in port and scrapped 11-07-1944
E PT 311 Destroyed by enemy mine 11-18-1944
E PT 320 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (bombing) 11-05-1944
D PT 321 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 11-11-1944
D PT 322 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 11-24-1943
E PT 323 Destroyed by enemy aircraft (suicide attack) 12-10-1944
E PT 337 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries 03-07-1944
D PT 338 Grounded and destroyed not in enemy water 01-31-1945
D PT 339 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 05-27-1944
D PT 346 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire U.S. aircraft 04-29-1944
D PT 347 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire U.S. aircraft 04-29-1944
D PT 353 Destroyed by Friendly-Fire Australian aircraft 03-27-1944
E PT 363 Destroyed by enemy shore batteries 11-25-1944
D PT 368 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 10-11-1944
D PT 371 Grounded in enemy waters/Destroyed to prevent capture 09-19-1944
E PT 493 Destroyed by enemy warship 10-25-1944
D PT 509 Destroyed by ramming enemy warship 08-09-1944
E PT 555 Destroyed by enemy mine 09-08-1944
Summary of loses
A Destroyed as a result of accident 12
D Destroyed due to damage and to prevent capture or Friendly-Fire 33
E Destroyed as a direct result of enemy action 24

Total:
96



niceguy2005 -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:17:33 AM)

I'm not sure that PT boat losses are unrealistic. In WitP about the only way to kill a bunch of PT boats quickly is by surface action. From what I have read, IRL, PT boats losses were primarily from being scuttled, because they were strafed and disabled, ran aground or suffered critical mechanical failure and had to be abandoned.

IMO, the only problem with PTs in WitP is that they are over used. I believe the post that said that there were about 330 PTs in the pacific and many were assigned to Southwest Pac, but I don't think all those PTs were really front line units. I suspect many were used as point defence for harbors. Probably a rule saying that the USN only gets say 100-200 PTs would be a good rule of thumb.



Big B -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:31:04 AM)

I am sure the explination is PT Boat vs Surface Ship contact in the average WitP game is much greater than IRL.

The only Japanese DDs I have identified so far as being sunk by US PT Boats are:

DD Udzuki 12/2/44
DD Kiyoshino 26/12/44
DD Teretsuki 12/12/42

I cannot find more detailed summaries of PT Boat kills yet. However I have read that the "torpedo problem" early in the war adversly affected PT Boat performance at the time, so the score could have been even higher theoretically.

Anyway, comparing a final score of 3 DDs sunk for 5 PTs sunk in action by enemy surface ships during the war, works out to a 3:5 kill rate for direct contact surface engagement. Not bad on the PT Boats side, and considerably better than the over 1:10 average kill rate of PTs to DDs in WitP.

My conclusion so far - PT's Are Not Overpowered.

B



Terminus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:32:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Some people just can't get through the day without a good whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine...[8|]

I prefer mine with a good bree.


Don't you mean "with a good breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"?[;)]



juliet7bravo -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:34:25 AM)

xxx



Knavey -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 2:22:34 AM)

And of course...I haven't heard anyone argue that the IJN is bombarding too many AFs which tends to bring the PTs to the defense since they are a good counter to the bombardment groups.  If the IJN player bombarded at a historical rate, perhaps they would not encounter so many USN PTs.

Just a thought.




spence -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 2:41:10 AM)

quote:

If the IJN player bombarded at a historical rate


Surely you don't advocate restricting the Japanese Player to one bombardment (by BBs) per game.[:D][:D][:D]



Knavey -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 3:01:08 AM)

I am surely not saying that!  I cannot fathom how someone who wants the game to give historical results would somehow limit themselves to historical gameplay. 

Playing historically would imbalance the game! 

Oh wait...thats right, the Japs could have won WW2.  I forgot.  Silly me.

You know, if I had a turn in my inbox, I would not be fanning the flames on my brothers thread right now.




Rainerle -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:08:51 PM)

Actually, now that Feinder opened our JFB eyes (I'm so grateful) and has shown us that Pt-boats are next to useless we should take them out of the game and put them where the midgets are. [:D]



castor troy -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:12:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oooooh, what overpowered PT-boats...



Wow!!! [X(] That helps... [8|]



Feinder -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:13:52 PM)

Always glad to be a service to this community Rainerle. Anything to promote peace, love, and cuddling between the JFB and AFB communities.

[sm=sterb029.gif]

-F-



castor troy -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:14:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Some people just can't get through the day without a good whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine...[8|]



Well, some people canīt get through the day without a good spaaaaaaaaaaaaam...[8|]



Terminus -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:18:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oooooh, what overpowered PT-boats...



Wow!!! [X(] That helps... [8|]


Are you "helping"? Raising the same "issue" over and over and over and over again? Whining about the same thing again and again?

That's all you and those like you do. Just play the game or don't. Give it a REST already.




castor troy -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:21:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

And of course...I haven't heard anyone argue that the IJN is bombarding too many AFs which tends to bring the PTs to the defense since they are a good counter to the bombardment groups.  If the IJN player bombarded at a historical rate, perhaps they would not encounter so many USN PTs.

Just a thought.





Whenever I read such a statement then I think on my dozens of Allied BBs that are doing bombardments all over the map even more (because of their number) then I do with Japanese BBs in the first year... [8|]

And for those who complain about the IJN doing it I wonder if they ever played further then 1942 and IF THEY THEN RESTRICT THEMSELFES TO NOT USING THEIR 50 ALLIED BBS TO BOMBARD OR ONLY ONE BOMBARDMENT PER BB??? [:-]




tsimmonds -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:22:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

And of course...I haven't heard anyone argue that the IJN is bombarding too many AFs which tends to bring the PTs to the defense since they are a good counter to the bombardment groups.  If the IJN player bombarded at a historical rate, perhaps they would not encounter so many USN PTs.

Just a thought.



Exactly. What looks to some like overpowered PTs is just PTs doing their job in response to enemy actions....



castor troy -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:24:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oooooh, what overpowered PT-boats...



Wow!!! [X(] That helps... [8|]


Are you "helping"? Raising the same "issue" over and over and over and over again? Whining about the same thing again and again?

That's all you and those like you do. Just play the game or don't. Give it a REST already.




Iīm raising an "issue" over and over and over again and youīre spamming and giving strange comments over and over again. Thatīs the only thing someone can expect from your side...

Glade that you are unique and there arenīt more of those...



tsimmonds -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:25:37 PM)

quote:

Whenever I read such a statement then I think on my dozens of Allied BBs that are doing bombardments all over the map even more (because of their number) then I do with Japanese BBs in the first year...

When is this taking place? If it is post mid-1943, it is entirely historical. If it is before then, the IJ player is missing something.



castor troy -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 1:28:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Whenever I read such a statement then I think on my dozens of Allied BBs that are doing bombardments all over the map even more (because of their number) then I do with Japanese BBs in the first year...

When is this taking place? If it is post mid-1943, it is entirely historical. If it is before then, the IJ player is missing something.



Sure, 200+ (even more, let me think...) bombardments of BBs are perfectly historical. You donīt want to tell me that, do you?



afspret -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 2:38:54 PM)

Has anybody looked at what the loss rates were during the real war? I'll bet you'll find almost similar numbers. Remember, no USN boats made out of the PI, they didn't sweep the seas clean in the Solomons, and IIRC, none of the newer heavily armed boats deployed in the Surigao Straits in '44 did any real damage.



tsimmonds -> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is (12/4/2006 2:43:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Whenever I read such a statement then I think on my dozens of Allied BBs that are doing bombardments all over the map even more (because of their number) then I do with Japanese BBs in the first year...

When is this taking place? If it is post mid-1943, it is entirely historical. If it is before then, the IJ player is missing something.



Sure, 200+ (even more, let me think...) bombardments of BBs are perfectly historical. You donīt want to tell me that, do you?

Depends what you are calling a bombardment. There were probably at least 200 days worth of allied naval bombardments in the Pacific during the war. That most of them were in support of landings does not change the fact that they took place. If you aren't using your bombardments to cover landings, that's not my fault.[;)]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625