|
Bullwinkle58 -> RE: 21 inch MK14 torpedo (4/18/2014 1:13:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Feltan
quote:
ORIGINAL: jmalter
quote:
ORIGINAL: msieving1
60% of sub launched torpedoes in 1945 were Mk 18s.
Well I'm def'nitely not a modder, but since subs are now modelled w/ pairs of tubes, it would be simple (albeit tedious) to change one pair of tubes to the Mk 18 in mid-war, and another pair in a late-war upgrade. Appropriate changes could be made by introducing new torp devices as needed, to reflect the increased power of the torpex warhead.
I've always thought it wasn't quite right that when the Mk 14 torpedo is upgraded, that that at-sea subs immediately take advantage w/o having to RTB to exchange their old-model ammo for the newer more effective fish.
So, from a modeling point-of-view on the scale of WITP-AE it doesn't bother me. When did the subs at sea get their last re-load of new torpedoes? What's to say that they weren't given new and improved torpedoes as part of their last re-load?
If this transition was modeled more "accurately", you'd see a transition period of what? Maybe 10 days to 2 weeks? In game, all the subs would head to the barn on the designated day all over the Pacific to grab the new torpedoes that have magically restocked all ports and AS ships in theater and magically become available to detonate on a given day? That's more accurate?
I think you'd feel better about it if you consider that magic day the end of the process of distribution and re-loading rather then the first day they are available at a naval depot on the West coast.
Regards,
Feltan
It's harder than this and a case of players needing to just chill out and take the abstractions of the game in stride.
The rule in Section 6.4.2.1 says that in January 1943 ALL torpedoes with a dud rate greater than 49 have their rate reduced by 20. (Not TO 20; one could only wish!)
The editor sez that the MK 13 aerial torpedo used by carrier TBs has a dud rate of 50. Ponder that.
How would your average AFB feel about having to pull every carrier into a major fleet base, say Pearl or larger, in January 1943 to swap out fish? Kind of disturbs a lot of plans.
Submarine warfare in the game is MASSIVLEY ahistorical. I've said that for years. No R&R periods, dense-pack boats repaired of major structural damage in a matter of days, no ability to choose how many fish to spend on low-mix targets, no ability to do multiple attacks on the same TF with one boat in one phase. (This is a huge difference from history.) Many other factors including crew rotations and training granularity, not modeled. In comparison the dud rate is minor.
I'm not aware of any Allied player who has ever come close to historical numbers with his subs. Few Japan players would play if that were the case. (Eight
aircraft carriers sunk by subs? Insane!)
And yet, and yet . . . It all works very well. It's balanced against the middle range of performance. Subs are useful, they're dangerous, sometimes they pack a huge punch, they can never be ignored. But they aren't the war-deciders they were in RL against the Japanese economy. IF they were the whole underpinning of the game would have to be re-cast. Victory conditions to begin and go from there.
So them getting "healed" in January while at sea is a flyspeck issue. If a player had to drive home and then back out it would just be another level of micro-management that adds nothing to strategy and tactics. In RL there was no such "Great Healing." By January 1943 Mk14 performance was all over the board, driven by individual COs who risked their careers and commands to get into their fish once they left on patrol and "fix" them locally. Also some squadrons did "helpful preventative maintenance" on the front lines in direct violation of BuOrd. It happened. If a boat's fish were at 80% dud rates in December 1942 it was because the CO was either an idiot or a coward or both. But the game needs a cut off date for the code and January works OK.
But don't for a minute think it reflects history.
|
|
|
|
