quote:

Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

quote:

So we're up to three examples - Taranto, Brest, and Pearl Harbor...

quote:

I am of the opinion that all anti-shipping attacks are too successful in the game - that something needs to be done to reduce the number of hits made by bombers of both sides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

I am of the opinion that all anti-shipping attacks are too successful in the game - that something needs to be done to reduce the number of hits made by bombers of both sides.

Do I think it's too accurate (both level bombing and torpedos).  Yes.

But I also think that most ships take too much punishment before going down (combination of them being too robust to begin with, the fact that they often take 3-4 days to sink, and that strikes continue to pummel a striken ship).

So I'll add the warning that if you make the targeting harder (fewer hits), you also make it much more difficult to sink something.

Now, that all may have been address previously in this thread (not sure), and I'd bet that (even if it wasn't addressed), that it has been looked at - given the new damage locations means reworking the damage code anyway).

But I'm just saying that be careful for reducing the accuracy (which would be empirically correct), because it would probably make things even harder to sink.

-F-

quote:

But I also think that most ships take too much punishment before going down (combination of them being too robust to begin with, the fact that they often take 3-4 days to sink, and that strikes continue to pummel a striken ship).

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So we're up to three examples - Taranto, Brest, and Pearl Harbor...

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe so, but I was also thinking about the other changes they are making. Pilot skill being tougher to achieve (has a lot to do with getting hits), reduced readiness rate for aircraft + higher ops losses = fewer attack sorties. It might be interesting to see how the play testing/beta testing goes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I hate the altitude settings as well. I had a thread on it this past week, but folks pretty much said, "That's the way it is."

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonHindenburg

Okay, my Questions:

1. How many (number) new types of airplanes will arrive in Admirals Edition?
2. What kind (Types) of airplanes are new in AE?
3. More variations for other airplanes as example as Ki-61?

Thanks for answering my questions. :)

quote:

1) 500+. However as a/c are now categorised by nation, some of these are "dublicates" of the same a/c, fx four counts of PV-1's, one for each service that used it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonHindenburg

Okay, my Questions:

1. How many (number) new types of airplanes will arrive in Admirals Edition?
2. What kind (Types) of airplanes are new in AE?
3. More variations for other airplanes as example as Ki-61?

Thanks for answering my questions. :)

1) 500+. However as a/c are now categorised by nation, some of these are "dublicates" of the same a/c, fx four counts of PV-1's, one for each service that used it.

2) Light- and attack bombers, tac recon, float transports. Certain others have been reworked, like the float fighter.

3. Loads more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I think what Ron is really objecting to is the relatively common multiengine torpedo bomber attacks in harbor (spit it out Ron - what you really mean are attacks by Bettys and Nells on shipping in harbor) which occur in the game of which the above cited is an example (though not involving Bettys or Nells). I hate them too but my biggest objection is not so much that they occur but that they score a percentage of hits that is ten or more times the rate at which they scored hits historically; that is, with the one and only one exception of the sinking of the PoW and Repulse. That attack was not against ships in harbor but in it the IJN flyers scored 20-30% hits with their torpedos. In common with a number of other RL events that singular performance appears to be taken as the standard by which the in-game weapons systems are judged. (Certainly one can not expect those same bombers to score fewer hits against ships tied up to a pier than they did against hi-speed warships manuevering at sea even though the ship's ability to manuever or not might well be the least of the problems faced by torpedo bombers attacking a harbor as the afore cited example indicates.) If the rate with which the Bettys and Nells score hits was brought in line with their historical average and if the availability of torpedos was a bit more in line with historical availability the problem would probably go away (aren't torpedos less available in AE?). But then the problem might be that PoW and Repulse can blithely sail into the South China Sea and wreak havoc on the IJN on turn 2 which would probably be a little too depressing for IJ Players.

The air units that attacked PoW and Repulse had evidently undergone intensive training in attacking ships with torpedos. From the tone of the interview with the former operations officer (I think) of one of those Daitai this training was not generic in any sense. Perhaps the specialization of aircraft/pilots for different mission profiles will correct the overall problem of Bettys/Nells undue capabilities if not all Betty/Nell Daitai are initially given the torpedo attack specialty.


(Certainly PH and Taranto and quite a few attacks by TF38/58 involved torpedo attacks in harbors by single engine torpedo bombers. Of note though is that the attacks on Port Darwin and the harbors in Ceylon by both Bettys and/or the torpedo bombers of the KB did not involve torpedo attacks.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Maybe this has been brought up as a "solution" tothe torp-prolific planes, but why not just create a bomber version and torp version of the same plane (obvioulsy, you're limited by slots). 

A plane that truely was a torpedo bomber by default, like Kate and Swordfish, would be unchanged of course. 

But you could have a torp version of the Nell and a bomb version (still classed as level bomber).  You just assign the squadrons to use whichever version. 

You could limit the number of torp squadrons and that would relect the limited the number of squadrson actually trained in torpedo attacks.  The extended range of the torp bombers could carry the AP bombs (given their mission is to attack ships). 

And for the "bomber" squadrons, you could change the load-out to carry GP bombs, thus making them more effective at bombing AFs (which as I recall is a probem because normally the 2e Jap bombers are dropping AP bombs on AFs).

Do-able?

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

So far Brest is the only example mentioned that involves multi-engined torpedo bombers.

I am of the opinion that all anti-shipping attacks are too successful in the game - that something needs to be done to reduce the number of hits made by bombers of both sides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

I guess what bugs me about the altitude thing is that many just use it to game the model. They find what they perceive to be the optimal altitude for a given mission and set everything there.

In reality altitudes were subject to all sorts of things, visibility - due to weather or smoke - flight conditions, mistakes, commander intuition, etc etc. I think if altitude were at least very variable the system would at least stop being gamed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe so, but I was also thinking about the other changes they are making. Pilot skill being tougher to achieve (has a lot to do with getting hits), reduced readiness rate for aircraft + higher ops losses = fewer attack sorties. It might be interesting to see how the play testing/beta testing goes.

Well, I've been playing a CHS mod I made vs the AI (I'm bored, OK?[;)]) which is the same mod Bill and I played last year to test a few issues I tried to address, and pilot experience was drastically dropped (avg pilot is in the 30s) and weapon accuracy was dropped 50% across the board. Despite the lower experience and weapon accuracy levels I'm still seeing Bettys/Nells torpedoing PT boats, maneuvering ships being hit 30+ times etc! Hopefully they are really checking under the hood and can make the capabilities more believable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I think what Ron is really objecting to is the relatively common multiengine torpedo bomber attacks in harbor (spit it out Ron - what you really mean are attacks by Bettys and Nells on shipping in harbor) which occur in the game of which the above cited is an example (though not involving Bettys or Nells). I hate them too but my biggest objection is not so much that they occur but that they score a percentage of hits that is ten or more times the rate at which they scored hits historically; that is, with the one and only one exception of the sinking of the PoW and Repulse. That attack was not against ships in harbor but in it the IJN flyers scored 20-30% hits with their torpedos. In common with a number of other RL events that singular performance appears to be taken as the standard by which the in-game weapons systems are judged. (Certainly one can not expect those same bombers to score fewer hits against ships tied up to a pier than they did against hi-speed warships manuevering at sea even though the ship's ability to manuever or not might well be the least of the problems faced by torpedo bombers attacking a harbor as the afore cited example indicates.) If the rate with which the Bettys and Nells score hits was brought in line with their historical average and if the availability of torpedos was a bit more in line with historical availability the problem would probably go away (aren't torpedos less available in AE?). But then the problem might be that PoW and Repulse can blithely sail into the South China Sea and wreak havoc on the IJN on turn 2 which would probably be a little too depressing for IJ Players.

The air units that attacked PoW and Repulse had evidently undergone intensive training in attacking ships with torpedos. From the tone of the interview with the former operations officer (I think) of one of those Daitai this training was not generic in any sense. Perhaps the specialization of aircraft/pilots for different mission profiles will correct the overall problem of Bettys/Nells undue capabilities if not all Betty/Nell Daitai are initially given the torpedo attack specialty.


(Certainly PH and Taranto and quite a few attacks by TF38/58 involved torpedo attacks in harbors by single engine torpedo bombers. Of note though is that the attacks on Port Darwin and the harbors in Ceylon by both Bettys and/or the torpedo bombers of the KB did not involve torpedo attacks.)

A technical observation here - which is not quite the same thing as saying there is nothing of value in Spence's point of view:

IF we take the attack on Force Z as a base

AND IF we compare it with an attack on ships in harbor

THEN we OUGHT TO SEE a MUCH HIGHER hit rate.

The chance of hitting a stationary target - or a slow target almost unable to maneuver as a ship in harbor is -
is far highter than it is of hitting a ship at full speed with complete freedom of maneuver as POW and Repulse had.

This observation leads me to be suspect of Spence's reasoning: he is reasoning from conclusions; he is not thinking about what SHOULD happen in a port.

For a better case of what should happen in port, look at PH or at Tarantao. Wether torpedo bombers have one or two engines machts nichts - they must fly low, strait, and not jink to have a good shot - and more or fewer engines changes nothing whatever about that. At PH it appears that it may be "every torpedo fired which did not bury itself in the mud struck a target." The principle uncertainty is "was one of the torpedoes fired NOT fired by an aircraft?" - and the answer to that uncertainty causes a slight variation in the hit rate. Note, however, that WITP so far does NOT provide for submarines to enter harbor - never mind that it really happened - nor does it provide for ships to have active or passive defenses (e.g. torpedo nets). It may be that some fraction of the torpedoes WOULD HAVE BEEN defeated had nets been rigged at PH. It also is not yet in the game that we can rate ports ease of entry in some way - so a place like Lahaina will seem less attractive because of its exposure to torpedo attacks. Lots of things might be changed/added - but the basic algorithms do not seem to be fundamentally wrong - just not properly modified for all situations.

In a mechanical game system requiring dozens of players to work out the math, played in public at Metro Seattle Gamers at Seattle University,
a wierd set of strategic circumstances caused a major naval engagement involving virtually every Allied cruiser in the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean to engage a small task force of the IJN (so small that this game, which had many old players of great experience, that the task force was commanded by two high school boys - one in command - the other boss of two CVLs). This game involved a serious statistical number of torpedo attacks - of all types - ship, aircraft and submarine. The Japanese were pinned - unable even to try to run by the necessity of defending transport ships - and they had only two Battleships (Nagato and Mutsu) supported by appropriate numbers of cruisers and destroyers. I did a statistical analysis and found exactly 1 in 6 torpedoes found its mark - regardless of the fact we required REAL torpedo fire control solutions and tracked EACH torpedo - or that only a minority of players had ever done this before. If there is a "target rich environment" the number of hits can indeed be above 10% - although that won't happen for distant maneuvering targets in small numbers. I found that often a torpedo intended for one ship hit another ship. If we went to a really sophisticated analysis system, we would have to think about missed shots, particularly if there are many potential targets close abeam - as in harbor. As once happened in a famous Fletcher Pratt game in a New York gymnasium (a housewife beat a real navy captain of destroyers) our high school boys came off looking very good indeed - they made not a single operational mistake in the days and hours leading up to the tactical battle - and all we had to do was give their ships players to work out what happened. Designed to win a decisive naval battle at sea - it looks to me like the one place the Japanese torpedo was truly decisive was in port.