RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here...

RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (Full Version)

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

Message

Damien Thorn -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/6/2004 6:08:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TIMJOT quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl the game generally doesn't allow torpedo attacks on ships in port (or has that been changed..., it's hard to keep up). If you are refering to "disbanded" ships in port. I believe that is correct, but as far as I know air torpedo attacks on docked ships are still allowed. I am still seeing those Betty & Nells useing their torpedos in Singapore and Manila Naval bases. I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not)

Nikademus -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/6/2004 6:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn [ I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not) They are. Difference however between attacking TF's and ships in ports (game-wise) is that, assuming full supply and normal range attacks, torpedo capable aircraft will always attack TF's with torpedoes. Against ships in port, torpedo capable aircraft will split between bombs and torpedoes.

TIMJOT -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 4:07:50 PM)
Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 4:37:43 PM)
quote: Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such. That used to be the case ... You also could not damage a ship in port. It was the great escape trick ... run for a port and disband. You no longer have the UV safety net of hiding in a port. Now a port attack (aircraft) will divide it's attention between the actual port facility and ships anchored there. While torpedoes in all ports were not possible, the data to model every port in the game as to whether it could or could not be attacked in such a manner does not exist. "subject" to torpedo attack is referring to submarine attacks, not air attacks.

TIMJOT -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 5:31:50 PM)
Ok, thanks for the heads up. I am happy to see the ole UV anchored ships protected by Magic force field trick done away with. If I understand you correctly "anchored" ships are still not subject to sub attack however. Correct?

Bulldog61 -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 5:43:13 PM)
I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port.

mdiehl -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 5:58:25 PM)
You mean multiple engined level bombers, right?

Mr.Frag -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 6:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MikeKraemer I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port. No one is talking about LBA dropping torpedoes Mike, we are talking about torpedo bombers dropping torpedoes. [;)]

sven6345789 -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 6:12:07 PM)
maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits.

Speedysteve -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 6:32:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sven6345789 maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits. Hi, I think this may still have been hits on the port 'accidently' hitting the ships docked rather than the aircraft specifcally targetting the ships docked there. Regards, Steven

madflava13 -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 7:26:50 PM)
With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...

barbarrossa -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 7:45:04 PM)
Hi, Perhaps "anchorage" is more descriptive of Ulithi and Kwajalein than "port". First post. This is going to be a heckuva game.

Nikademus -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 8:09:19 PM)
all torpedo capable aircraft can launch torps at a port target but it will be a preportion as mentioned between bombs and torps

Mr.Frag -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 8:12:27 PM)
It is not even that simple. Take for instance ports like Noumea and Efate during '42. There were times that cargo ships lay at anchor for months while they tried to catch up with port handling equipment to be able to unload the goods because the dock's gantry cranes were not big enough to be able to offload the equipment. These ships were not tied up at the pier unloading, they were sitting at anchor, possibly even outside any submarine netting, ripe for the picking. Yet by our game scope, they would be considered disbanded in port. There really isn't any global rule that can be applied that suits all cases, even with valid port data unless one took port data coupled with ship capacity and came up with a unique system for each port that had three classes of disbanded: (a) At the pier/dock and (b) At the anchorage and (c) outside the anchorage. (a) & (b) would represent ships that had specific restrictions and (c) would fall outside the restriction but there would also be a chance based on the port data that (b) could become a target (ie: deep water, possible long run in for TB aircraft, etc)

Mike Scholl -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 8:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madflava13 With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban... You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release. The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem.

mdiehl -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 8:30:57 PM)
quote: Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem. Agreed. I think there is a way to code "torp attack ineligible ports" however without adding alot of code. It'd be an attribute of the port in the database. In the airstrike routine that determines the load out this would add a conditional statement (two lines of code at most) that loaded bombs rather than torps on air groups whose mission is port attack and whose target hex is marked.

Apollo11 -> There is bigger problem here... (4/7/2004 8:37:44 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release. The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem. IMHO (and 100% connected to this) there is one other important issue here: The UV (and WitP) does not differentiate Port size with anchor size (I think "Subchaser" brought this up first few weeks ago)... For UV (and WitP) game engine any base with same port size is same regardless of actual geography conditions (i.e. you can place whole fleet with every single ship that exists at anchor in any port size => 3). Leo "Apollo11"

Mr.Frag -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/7/2004 8:46:49 PM)
Hmm, now you are throwing a different issue into the mix, so much for clarity of thought. Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away. Do you have any sources that show the effective range of these aircraft on a torpedo attack profile? Judging by the bombload capacity, if they carried a torpedo instead of bombs, they actually had MORE room for fuel because the torpedo was lighter then their bomb load capacity. While there would be some aerodynamic differences (ie: drag from the torpedo), their effective range logically would not be radically different then that of their reduced bombload range.

mogami -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/7/2004 8:57:18 PM)
Hi, I think the Betty/Nell carried the torpedo inside the aircraft. They had to remove the bombbay door. The aircraft that attacked RK Turner on 8 Aug were Betty with the bomb bay door removed.

TIMJOT -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/7/2004 9:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away. Just useing empirical evidence, the distance from South Indo-China to Singapore and the distance from Formosa to Manila is less than the distance between Rabaul and Lunga. So it appears to me that geography not range was the defining reason torp attack were not attempted in those ports. Certainly range wasnt a factor at Suribaya, Batavia, and Darwin. Personally I dont feel it would be too difficult to code. Virtually all non-atoll harbors were imune to at least multi-engine torp bomber attack. But I have resigned myself to live with it because I want to play this game NOW. Hey BTW shouldnt this game be in Beta by now?

madflava13 -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/7/2004 9:28:05 PM)
I always hated in UV when the AI would launch a torpedo attack from Rabaul on ships at Cairns. I don't have data on historical ranges, but that HAS to be too far for them to fly!

TIMJOT -> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... (4/7/2004 11:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madflava13 With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban... Dont have the stats in front of me, but IIRC I believe it was approx. 700 some odd miles with torp. Which Placed Lunga from Rabaul at the end of that range. Carins would be I believe out of range from Rabaul.

tanjman -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/8/2004 3:24:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release. The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem. IMHO (and 100% connected to this) there is one other important issue here: The UV (and WitP) does not differentiate Port size with anchor size (I think "Subchaser" brought this up first few weeks ago)... For UV (and WitP) game engine any base with same port size is same regardless of actual geography conditions (i.e. you can place whole fleet with every single ship that exists at anchor in any port size => 3). Leo "Apollo11" I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships. It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP.

Mike Scholl -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/8/2004 6:09:26 AM)
[/quote] I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships. It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP. [/quote] An unfortunate, but probably quite accurate assumption.

Apollo11 -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/8/2004 1:03:05 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Hmm, now you are throwing a different issue into the mix, so much for clarity of thought. Ahm... Like I said in my initial message in UV (and WitP I presume) the base port is determined by just one single variable - "Port Size". Also, as said by "tanjman", the most probable definition of that "Port Size" variable is that it refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, i.e. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships. So... the obvious solution would be to have "Port Size" and "Anchor Size" variables to describe every HEX but, unfortunately, I am afraid that we will never see that happening... [:(] Please Note that "Anchor Size" variable would show the geographic capability of HEX and set how many ships can actually be anchored. Some special "+" and "-" additional variable would then show availability of torpedo attack with normal torpedoes (i.e. the Pearl Harbor would have "-" because it was safe from ordinary torpedo attacks). quote: Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away. Do you have any sources that show the effective range of these aircraft on a torpedo attack profile? Judging by the bombload capacity, if they carried a torpedo instead of bombs, they actually had MORE room for fuel because the torpedo was lighter then their bomb load capacity. While there would be some aerodynamic differences (ie: drag from the torpedo), their effective range logically would not be radically different then that of their reduced bombload range. I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote... [;)] But I do know that they carried torpedo in bomb bay (bomb bay doors would then be removed). IMHO, that means that no range penalty would be present for same weight (i.e. same range for same bomb weight and torpedo weight). Leo "Apollo11"

Mr.Frag -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/8/2004 3:29:16 PM)
quote: I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote... Was replying to Mike really, not you [;)]

Apollo11 -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/8/2004 4:47:04 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote... Was replying to Mike really, not you [;)] RGR [;)] Leo "Apollo11"

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/9/2004 10:19:51 PM)
And mdiehl, I must admit I found your arguments persuasive, if perhaps based on inadequate information for your assessment of the outcome's tendency. I like mdiehl's posts. He usually always put in a good argument (unless he comes to AoW trying to debate ME, there he ends up getting owned).

mdiehl -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/9/2004 10:35:54 PM)
[&o]Only because you distract me so with the painted trollop in your sig line.

byron13 -> RE: There is bigger problem here... (4/10/2004 12:15:01 AM)
What do you mean "the" painted trollop? You talk like that's just some random snippet downloaded off the internet somewhere. The segment of the "trollop" is really a clip of ChickenSalad shaving last Tuesday.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.578125