American Torpedoes

American Torpedoes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Xilana -> American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 8:47:11 AM)
Curious... Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history.

LoBaron -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 8:58:28 AM)
As far as PBEM is concerned, you will not get many Japanese players to agree to this. Working torps can be absolutely devastating early war if an Allied player knows how to best deploy subs.

zuluhour -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 10:17:31 AM)
nice try.

HexHead -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 2:04:22 PM)
My IJ opponent agreed to this in a Scen 2 PbeM. We're at the end of Dec41 & it's been OK, so far. Nothing spectacular - I may or may not have put a scare into a CV or two and perhaps a bit more - but maybe nothing. In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far.

Flicker -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 3:59:13 PM)
IIRC the dud torpedoes are carried by USN fleet boats; Dutch, British, and USN Sugar boats can be fairly effective early in the war.

kaleun -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 5:25:34 PM)
quote: IIRC the dud torpedoes are carried by USN fleet boats; Dutch, British, and USN Sugar boats can be fairly effective early in the war. Yes, it is always nice to see the Dutch and S boats at work!.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 5:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a Curious... Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history. Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON.

Lokasenna -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 7:15:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far. Have you, now? [;)] Mostly reliable torps makes a difference against xAKs, as that's where most of your attacks will be, but it's certainly deadly to warships as well.

Lokasenna -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 7:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a Curious... Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history. Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON. IMO PDU On is just about as useful to the Allies as to Japan. A better tradeoff might be reliable torps for not having to pay PPs for marching across borders and Realistic R&D Off. Even then...reliable torps might have a far greater effect than 3k AV from Manchukuo and being able to change between R&D and production factories.

HexHead -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/12/2013 9:13:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far. Have you, now? [;)] Mostly reliable torps makes a difference against xAKs, as that's where most of your attacks will be, but it's certainly deadly to warships as well. Small sample, one month, but just a little bit of difference seems apparent already. More like bagging six merchies instead of two in the opening weeks. A guerre de course is now playable from the start. Attrition of merchant and tanker hulls, from the beginning - I'll take it. Sending IJN keels to the bottom is gravy.

crsutton -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 12:02:10 AM)
Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get.

GreyJoy -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 7:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get. The allied SS fleet is so big and grows so large that, with reliable torps, it will soon become almost impossible for the japs to move anything outside the LBA ASW umbrella. Also, if you play DBB, the Japanese naval ASW is so nerfed that the game will really be umbalanced. my 0.00002 cents

mike scholl 1 -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 2:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a Curious... Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history. Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON. IMO PDU On is just about as useful to the Allies as to Japan. A better tradeoff might be reliable torps for not having to pay PPs for marching across borders and Realistic R&D Off. Even then...reliable torps might have a far greater effect than 3k AV from Manchukuo and being able to change between R&D and production factories. In truth, I was just making a point. What I would really ask for in exchange for PDU ON is "Withdrawals OFF". Not because I think the Allies need extra units..., but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place. This is just "busywork" (the unit is ALWAYS somewhere hard to get when it needs to be withdrawn).

LoBaron -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 4:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating.

HexHead -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 5:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating. Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff?

LoBaron -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 6:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating. Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff? Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference. And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war...

HexHead -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 9:33:19 PM)
I dunno, I'd hafta look at the Ground W-draw screen again. Didn't seem like an immensity to me. Frankly, if, like Jellicoe, one feels like one can lose the war in an afternoon, then one is in the wrong game. I am diametrically opposite in this view. It's Petrosian, not Tal. It's a patient accumulation of perhaps small, yet telling, advantages, that, over months and years, integrate and fuse to enable victory on the map. Still, the central point is Ahistorical is Ahistorical. I agreed to a Scen2 game with very few HRs. Esteemed opponent pulled a Mersing, which I had forgotten about. Tough, get used to it, crybaby. I don't think No Ws would be a crusher - mebbe I'm wrong.

axyarthur -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 9:55:10 PM)
In my first game against AI, I made the mistake of turning reliable torpedoes on. The result is that by mid 1943, Japan has less than 100 AKs and xAks and exactly 1 AP afloat. Granted not all of them are sunk by subs, and this is the AI, but the effect can be devastating. I stopped the game shortly after that.

AW1Steve -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/13/2013 11:12:45 PM)
I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D]

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 2:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get. So true.

Lokasenna -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 2:40:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D] Oh? Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all. ;)

LoBaron -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 5:47:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead I dunno, I'd hafta look at the Ground W-draw screen again. Didn't seem like an immensity to me. It does not need to be. As Japanese you have to set target dates and keep timelines. To get the fuel production up and running and to give enough time to set up a defensive perimeter (or several FWIIW) for when the Allied counterattack begins. Every unit not disappearing is another roadblock to overcome. Every eng squad builds up forts faster. Most of the units are small and second rate, but they prevent the Japanese from keeping timelines and to take freebees. Same for air units, or ships. quote: Still, the central point is Ahistorical is Ahistorical. I agreed to a Scen2 game with very few HRs. Esteemed opponent pulled a Mersing, which I had forgotten about. Tough, get used to it, crybaby. I don't think No Ws would be a crusher - mebbe I'm wrong. Scen2 is different. I never talk about Scen2 if a discussion revolves around additional help for the Japanese. Scen2 IS the additional help already. It is a fantasy scenario and nothing of what I have said above applies to it. In Scen1 OTOH, what Allied players often love to forget, 20/20 hindsight works stronger for the Allies than for the JApanese and this including PDU ON. I don�t think I am such a superior Allied player compared to the rest that I am the only one who notices that.

crsutton -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 3:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating. Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff? Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference. And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war... Basically, you should give pretty much any advantage to you IJN partner that you can. All things being equal, they will need it and you will have the pleasure of going deeper into the game. I would never do Quiet China though. My only experience has been as the Allies playing scen #2. If I were playing stock it is the only one I would want to play. It is a bit hairy in 42 and 43, but in the end much more exciting with the realistic expectation that you will have a challenging fun game that can go deep into 1945. I have said it before and will say it again, if the Allied player keeps his cool and his carriers intact, there is no situation that he can't recover from, and with players of equal skill-he should always win. I did a lot of whining about the edge that my Japanese opponents had but that was when I was stuck in 1942 and 43. Now I am a bit embarrassed about my complaining. Those of you who have got to 45 in a game know what I am saying. The Allies just get so much stuff from mid 44 on that it is really impossible to use it all. And unless you really screw the pooch, you pretty much can whip butt anywhere you want. Just ask Viperpol who had played a great game from the Japanese side in our campaign. Heck, a vanilla US Infantry division has 27 pershing tanks and 27 Sherman 105 support tanks in 1945. Try to find two Japanese divisions that can stand up to it. And I am about to turn my Soviet dogs loose on Ark. You should see what a Soviet Mech corps looks like. It is unholy with about 800 AV for a single unit! Next campaign for me will be one of the Babes.

AW1Steve -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 3:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D] Oh? Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all. ;) Could not agree more!~ [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/14/2013 3:47:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating. Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff? Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference. And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war... Basically, you should give pretty much any advantage to you IJN partner that you can. All things being equal, they will need it and you will have the pleasure of going deeper into the game. I would never do quite China though. But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander. NOTHING in war is ever equal. Unless you are trying "an experiment" , when you mess with the order , you mess with reality. An equivalent would be giving Lee 50,000 more men at Gettysburg. What would that prove? If you want an equal game , try chess. If you want the near ultimate challenge , try WITP AE. [:)]

Chickenboy -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/15/2013 3:23:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D] Oh? Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all. ;) Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect. Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist.

Chickenboy -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/15/2013 3:26:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander. Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/15/2013 1:21:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D] Oh? Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all. ;) Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect. Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist. Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful. In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has: 1) Scenario 2 2) Non-historic R&D 3) Advanced weather OFF 4) PDU ON 5) Dud torpedoes ON In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now. In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features. But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on.

AW1Steve -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/15/2013 2:01:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve But the point is all things are NOT equal. The point of the game is to see if you are better than the commander. Nooooo.... The point of the game is for both parties to have fun. What specific mental gymnastics you go through to validate your gameplay fun factor is up to you. If it takes you pretending that you're better than the real life commander, then that's how you motivate yourself. Other people's motives(including mine own) vary. Stacking the deck against your opponent as much as possible is your definition of "having fun"?[sm=00000116.gif][sm=dizzy.gif] Hmmmmm....[:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: American Torpedoes (11/15/2013 2:01:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes". Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. [sm=00000280.gif] [sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] So there! [:D] Oh? Real men, AFB or JFB, play with no HRs. At all. ;) Meh. I'm more impressed with Japanese players that tackle no HR games. There's something decidedly girly about insisting on the 'stronger' position (the Allies) for the long game and then insisting on no HRs to mitigate the gameplay moving forward. Not an equal contest by any stretch. Japanese players that stick to games like that have my respect. Allied players? There's no sacrifice in assuring yourself the strong hand in the long run and expediting the demise of your opponent's ability to resist. Interesting that you essentially admit that HRs exist solely to aid the Japanese player. Few Japan players would be so bold, or truthful. In both my games, including one against Lokasenna, Japan has: 1) Scenario 2 2) Non-historic R&D 3) Advanced weather OFF 4) PDU ON 5) Dud torpedoes ON In addition, I told Lokasenna that if he wanted to he could set my reinforcements to any variable time he liked and not tell me. From memory I don't think he told me what he did, nor do I need to know now. In exchange for that menu of Japan-aid all I ask is for BOTH sides to play the game as designed and balanced. The features built into the game--op tempo, "rice" av gas, multi-engine torpedo accuracy, Allied float plane wonderments, submarine patrol cycle times and all the rest--are what they are and we don't tweak them subjectively. Some features exist to balance other features. But I think the above menu of Japan-aid gives a Japanese player the very best chance they need to get an auto-vic. Further hampering the Allies in 1942 is just not on. CB and I have a similar game going.....

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.311523