RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (Full Version)

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



Message

bradfordkay -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 8:36:00 PM)

quote:

Hi Bradfordkay, I think we are talking past each other. I am agreeing with you.


Timjot,yes, I was trying to supply information that backs up your statements. My information was very out of date, and so I added that disclaimer. It is just that my issue of Jane's does not mention Changi Naval Base whatsoever, so I posted what information it had on the subject.

Question, in UV/WITP are Naval Attacks allowed only on undocked, undisbanded TFs in a port or are they allowed on all undisbanded TFs in a port? I think in the answer to this question lies the crux of the whole argument, considering the way that the game treats ports and anchorages. Maybe I missed all the posts, but I don't recall too many complaints about getting ships torpedoed off Lunga in UV (or any other place where they were vulnerable to the dreaded Betty attacks). Why are we so up in arms now, when the hexes include even more open water?



mogami -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 8:36:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Frankly I have nothing against bigger bombs based on range.


Since the 800 kg bomb weighs the same weight as a torpedo the range would be the same.


Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)



Mike Scholl -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 8:53:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)

YOU'RE RIGHT. Though only partially because of "drag", and not in all cases. But the
"flight profile" of a torpedo attack is also limiting because the time spent at lower and
less effecient flight altitide is noticably greater as well. A TBF which mounted it's Torpedo
Internally still had a longer range with a 2,000 lb bomb.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 8:54:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And back into the breach we go ...

So, the 200+ cargo ships that happened to be anchored off Noumea and Efate somehow should be magically immune too? [:D]


Nope, like Rainerles suggested, IMO there should be limits on how many ships can be disbanded or docked in port based on size. The 200+ ships can be present in the hex but not docked or dispanded. They would be subject to Med.Bombers set to "NAVAL ATTACK"

Regardless, the thing is Mr.Frag having the capability causes all sorts or un-historical results while not haveing it does not result in any un-historical results because it NEVER HAPPENED during the war. Why do you feel its important that a capablility that has no historical presedence be modeled in the game?



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:00:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Hi Actually the range would be increased somewhat. I think the torpedos are outside while the bombs are inside. (Does anyone know for sure. I know Betty's had to remove their bombbay door to carry a torpedo)

YOU'RE RIGHT. Though only partially because of "drag", and not in all cases. But the
"flight profile" of a torpedo attack is also limiting because the time spent at lower and
less effecient flight altitide is noticably greater as well. A TBF which mounted it's Torpedo
Internally still had a longer range with a 2,000 lb bomb.


Thats true Mike, but since Singapore was closer to bases in Indo-china than Rabaul was to Lunga and we know Betty's did reach Lunga with torps, demonstrates that range was not a factor in the decision NOT to torpedo attack Singapore NB, Keppel Harbor or Cavite.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:04:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

My information was very out of date, and so I added that disclaimer. It is just that my issue of Jane's does not mention Changi Naval Base whatsoever, so I posted what information it had on the subject.



No problem Bradfordkay, your source doesnt mention it because its a WWI source and the Naval base was built after the war ( started in 1920's )



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:16:59 PM)

quote:

Regardless, the thing is Mr.Frag having the capability causes all sorts or un-historical results while not haveing it does not result in any un-historical results because it NEVER HAPPENED in during the war. Why do you feel its important that a capablility that has no historical presedence be modeled in the game?


We are playing with history itself by pretending that hundreds of large ships could be hidden away inside a port. My issue is one of mechanics, not weapons systems. You guys are all wrapped up in the weapons systems aspect of it and have not actually caught on to the game play implications.

To get a PORT ATTACK, I have to specifically order a port attack. The aircraft will fly this mission to the exclusion of any other mission. This causes a dance issue really, where players can play a game of chance, randomly jumping their ships in and out of port subjecting themselves to magical immunity of a sorts. Aircraft set to attack port will blindly go off and attack the port because that is what they have been ordered to do. They will not lay waste to the 50 ships that you just formed into a transport task force, they will completely ignore them. They will take losses against the Port's AA and CAP for NOTHING because you jumped your ships out of port.

Ships were torpedoed while outside the actual physical dock area. Ships were bombed while in the dock. If you consider the abstraction at a 50,000 foot level, being in a port does not mean that you are IN a port. It is an abstracted concept to represent you being in a location, anchored or tied up to a pier with your engines probably shut down meaning you do not have the option of being able to conduct evasive moves when things are launched at you.

As we do not have the level of detail down to exactly what ports had what features available from a ship handling capacity and a anti-torpedo defence system such as netting or shallow draft etc, a general rule is the current solution.

I frankly do not care personally what gets dropped on you or what hits you, but please deal with the realities here. Ports do not grant magical immunity which seems to be what you folks want. There is not a one of us that has not seen the famous 3 plane Betty attack at Cairns or Cooktown because we FORGOT to disband our ships. That should clue you in to the very nature of the problem. Why should this magic act of clicking a button labeled disband make you sleep safe at night? The ships haven't moved, they didn't warp into a bomb proof shelter, they are still there in exactly the same spot.

Think about the game mechanics of ordering an attack, not the weapons used. Remember you get 1 chance in 24 hours to issue your orders.



Nikademus -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:18:39 PM)

Hi Timjot.

just an FYI....i'm staying out of the public debate on this issue [;)] ...the Japanese didn't attack Singapore at all during the opening of hostilities. (they had other missions)

Cavite was indeed "bombed" vs torpedoed...but the main target was the port itself..more so than the ships......and they scored far better as a result, destroying the port's torpedo magazine (as well as one sub), crippling the Asiatic Fleet's sub ops from the get go

enjoying the fireworks [X(]



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:34:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Hi Timjot.

just an FYI....i'm staying out of the public debate on this issue [;)] ...the Japanese didn't attack Singapore at all during the opening of hostilities. (they had other missions)

Cavite was indeed "bombed" vs torpedoed...but the main target was the port itself..more so than the ships......and they scored far better as a result, destroying the port's torpedo magazine (as well as one sub), crippling the Asiatic Fleet's sub ops from the get go

enjoying the fireworks [X(]


Hi Nik, Actually I believe the Japanese did bomb Singapore city that night ( Early AM ).
I have to disagree though, The 22nd Air Flottilla sole initial mission was to Destroy Force Z. It was the reason it was transfered to Indo-china in the first place. The airfields were attacked by Army bombers. Regardless what the main target as far as Cavite is concerned it was still too small for Med.Bomber torp attack.



barbarrossa -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 9:37:56 PM)

Mr Frag, you make a compelling arguement. Perhaps the effectiveness of the bombing should be increased when enemy ships are "hiding" in that magic anchor icon, as this should be an indication of immobility and qualify them for sitting duck status. Maybe that can offset the lack of effective torpedo attack capability.

And ships that are sunk in the "port-mode" can somehow be detrimental to the capacity of that port as in real life it would be with ships sitting on thier bottoms taking up mooring space or blocking the ingress and egress.

Might make some players think twice about piling up 200+ ships in some ports as well, which is probably as ahistorical as anything else being bandied about. Ulithi notwithstanding.

I dunno.

But probably too late in the process now.[:)]



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:03:40 PM)

quote:

Mr.Frag
To get a PORT ATTACK, I have to specifically order a port attack. The aircraft will fly this mission to the exclusion of any other mission. This causes a dance issue really, where players can play a game of chance, randomly jumping their ships in and out of port subjecting themselves to magical immunity of a sorts. Aircraft set to attack port will blindly go off and attack the port because that is what they have been ordered to do. They will not lay waste to the 50 ships that you just formed into a transport task force, they will completely ignore them. They will take losses against the Port's AA and CAP for NOTHING because you jumped your ships out of port.


Its not magical immunity its realality. Ships in Harbor were immune to Med.Bomber torp attack. Besides I dont think aircraft ordered to attack a port would very often disobey orders and instead attack ships sighted outside the port. Example when the IJN attacked Cavite there were many ships still milling about in Manila bay, but the Bettys went ahead and leveled the port anyway.

The solution is quite simple. Limit the amount of ships that can dock and disbanded in port based on port size. These ships are immune to torp attack. All other TFs in the hex are considered outside the port and subject to torp attack via "Naval Attack".



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:09:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

Mr.Frag
To get a PORT ATTACK, I have to specifically order a port attack. The aircraft will fly this mission to the exclusion of any other mission. This causes a dance issue really, where players can play a game of chance, randomly jumping their ships in and out of port subjecting themselves to magical immunity of a sorts. Aircraft set to attack port will blindly go off and attack the port because that is what they have been ordered to do. They will not lay waste to the 50 ships that you just formed into a transport task force, they will completely ignore them. They will take losses against the Port's AA and CAP for NOTHING because you jumped your ships out of port.


Its not magical immunity its realality. Ships in Harbor were immune to Med.Bomber torp attack. Besides I dont think aircraft ordered to attack a port would very often disobey orders and instead attack ships sighted outside the port. Example when the IJN attacked Cavite there were many ships still milling about in Manila bay, but the Bettys went ahead and leveled the port.

The solution is quite simple. Limit the amount of ships that can dock and disbanded in port based on port size. These ships are immune to torp attack. All other TFs in the hex are considered outside the port and subject to torp attack via "Naval Attack".


And what would be the historic numbers for each port Tim? Where does that come from? Or do we simply invent another rule thats potentially offers even more issues, such as subs attacking these ships that are no longer *in* port?

You have to think bigger picture here, look at all sides of an issue.



Nikademus -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:12:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Hi Nik, Actually I believe the Japanese did bomb Singapore city that night ( Early AM ).
I have to disagree though, The 22nd Air Flottilla sole initial mission was to Destroy Force Z. It was the reason it was transfered to Indo-china in the first place. The airfields were attacked by Army bombers. Regardless what the main target as far as Cavite is concerned it was still too small for Med.Bomber torp attack.


They did....a few days (dont have source with me, sorry) after the start of hostilities, by which time the juicy targets were gone (to be sunk at sea) they were, IIRC attempting to hit the airfield but ended up hitting the town more than anything else causing quite a few casualties 22nd air flotila was there to protect the invasion.....correct....but they did not attack Singapore on 12/7 at all which was the point i was making. They might have had they chosen but i think they were, in addition to the other targeting prioriites

Have to edit this....i think the first attack did have Force Z still in the harbor because a memory bubble just came to me that recalled mentioning a few shots were thrown out by Force Z ships....but the attack was not on the harbor. ah well :)



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:15:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And what would be the historic numbers for each port Tim? Where does that come from? Or do we simply invent another rule thats potentially offers even more issues, such as subs attacking these ships that are no longer *in* port?

You have to think bigger picture here, look at all sides of an issue


The numbers are already in the game. Each port has already been given a max size correct. The numbers would be generic based on those sizes 0-9. A few ports might be short changed a little and others might be over compensated, but no more than other abstracts in the game. And yes non docked non dispanded TFs in a port hex should be subject to sub attack becuase it is assume that they are outside a port filled to capacity . If the player doesnt disband or dock a TF in port with available space its his fault.



Rendova -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:19:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ships were torpedoed while outside the actual physical dock area. Ships were bombed while in the dock. If you consider the abstraction at a 50,000 foot level, being in a port does not mean that you are IN a port. It is an abstracted concept to represent you being in a location, anchored or tied up to a pier with your engines probably shut down meaning you do not have the option of being able to conduct evasive moves when things are launched at you.


Well no if you are "DOCKED" your are IN port, other wise the docked vs undocked setting has no meaning, having a max ships DOCKED in port makes alot of sense, we already have it for airfields.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:39:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

They did....a few days (dont have source with me, sorry) after the start of hostilities, by which time the juicy targets were gone (and sunk at sea) they were, IIRC attempting to hit the airfield but ended up hitting the town more than anything else causing quite a few casualties 22nd air flotila was there to protect the invasion.....correct....but they did not attack Singapore on 12/7 at all which was the point i was making. They might have had they chosen but i think they were, in addition to the other targeting prioriites


Nik,

I am sure that Singapore city was attacked early morning of the Dec.8th. I will re-check though.

The 22nd air Flotilla wsa sent to indo-china in November specifically to counter the arrival of Force Z. Yamamoto personally challenged it's pilots to sink the POW and Repulse ( I believe a prize of vintage Sake was offered ). The invasions were covered by aircraft of the 3rd Army Airforce Division. Note; there were only the 25 A6Ms of the Yamada detactment in the whole Malaya theater. The bombers of the 22nd airflot spent the first days on of the war on standby or frantically searching for Force Z.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:46:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
Have to edit this....i think the first attack did have Force Z still in the harbor because a memory bubble just came to me that recalled mentioning a few shots were thrown out by Force Z ships....but the attack was not on the harbor. ah well
:)

Yes Force Z did shoot some AA at bombers passing the naval base on there way to Singapore on the 8th. The ships left port soon after and mostly alluded being sited the rest of the 8th and 9th. There were some brief siteings but contact could not be maintained.



Nikademus -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 10:49:43 PM)

True, but if the Japanese chose a "let them come to us" attitude does not of itself mean that they couldn't have attacked the port with torpedoes.

Myself.....i dont attack the port on 12/7 either. :)

better, more important targets.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 11:15:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

True, but if the Japanese chose a "let them come to us" attitude does not of itself mean that they couldn't have attacked the port with torpedoes.

Myself.....i dont attack the port on 12/7 either. :)

better, more important targets.


I dont know Nik, I think it does. They risked letting Force Z escaped. It is not as though it would have been thought likely that Adm. Philips would definitely attempt to attack the invasion forces. Willingly letting Force Z escape might have caused problems for the DEI operations later. Regardless the reason torp attack by Med.Bomber was not attempted at the Naval base was because it's locations well up the Jahore strait made it impracticable. The depth was low, the port was no more than 1700yrds wide and unlike PH the berths were protected by torp netting.



Nikademus -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 11:20:26 PM)

perhaps. However the Japanese were more concerned with Force Z attacking their invasion force vs. letting it escape. A subtle difference i'll grant you but their entire naval deployment was primarily defensive in nature



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/26/2004 11:51:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

perhaps. However the Japanese were more concerned with Force Z attacking their invasion force vs. letting it escape. A subtle difference i'll grant you but their entire naval deployment was primarily defensive in nature


The deployment was risky as well. They only had 2 capital ships covering the invasion (two Kongos ) I wonder how things would have turned out if weather negated air ops and instead the two Kongos fought it out with the POW and Repulse. Have you ever had this happen in the game?



Nikademus -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 12:23:55 AM)

Yes......if it was at night, Force Z usually gets the worst of it overall though often at least one Kongo regrets the whole thing [;)] But not every time.

I pretty much dont risk it anymore and withdrawl the two high value units to the Indian ocean where i've been able to make more of a nusience of myself....least until the enemy moves his air assets to Rangoon.



Brady -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 6:30:19 AM)

TIMJOT, was along day just got home...

The whole crux of my argument was based on the fact that Lunga (gudacanal off henderson) was considered a port by UV and I suspect similar locations are in WiTP. The 4 examples I sighted were to show that the Japanese did consider atacking ships at that type of location viable with torpedoes. The ships were moving on at least one ocashion but this was because they knew the Bettys were comming and dispersed, this is not realy pertanant to the point I was making which was that they would, could, and did atack ships in similar situation. Which goes directly toward the point at hand which is largely based on how the game defines ports and how they endevore to protect ships witehn them.
As others have said above, and said well, it is lame to think that by merly pushing a button ships should be imune from atack inport's, if anything they were more vulnerable to conventinal bomb and dive bomb atacks by virtue of being tied up.
Part of the argument to allow torps in port was to in a way compensate for the lack of the large bombs on the Japanese planes(twins), this was at best a week argument and realy would of been far worse for the Atacking side do to the issues with ack and flack and the losses incured.
From what I have read the Japanese Navy Land atack planes used 60KG,250KG and 500KG bombs on various ocashions to atack ships at sea. To make Port atacks (land atacks) the larger 800KG or a mixed load depending on the target was often used, airfields would be hit with 250KG or 60, or even 15 kg bomblets to area atack, structures work shops port facilitays would be given over to 800KG types, as such ships tied up or in port could be subjected to these weapons while in port as would the facilitys themselfs the work shops storage ect. Their are many examples of ships at sea being bombed with some suxcess by leval bombers, though not widely suxcessful in doing so they were effective to a point.
Ships in port were prety much always easy meat for Aircraft...think Truck, which under the present rules I beleave would be imposable to repeat.



Pier5 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 3:45:58 PM)

If the game can be made to model torpedo nets as I previously mentioned, would that not put an end to all of this. I suggest the following methodology, depending of course, on coding difficulties.

1. torpedo nets are considered 100 percent effective. That is, any port equipped with a torpedo net cannot be attacked by torpedo bombers. Isn't this a simple IF statement?

2. Ports not suitable for torpedo attack due to physical size, adjacent terrain, water depth, whatever will be equipped with torpedo nets. This will be a player editable function so that we can argue this et finitum, but at least the game can go on without the ridiculous action we see that can occur at Cavite with the current model.

3. Pearl would not initially be equipped with a torpedo net, but would be automatically so equipped on January 1, 1942.

4. Somewhere there is an example of a port setup screen, which is editable. Torpedo net, yes-no, would simply be added to this screen, with a default to yes.

Why wouldn't this work with a minimum of effort, while affording anyone with a different opinion to simply fix it to their liking?

Pier5



Mr.Frag -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 4:23:43 PM)

Further thought on the port sizing option:

Do these ships that can not disband due to port limit cap loose the benefit of reducing flooding damage? do they repair at port rates?

Whole can of worms here, always have to think of all the potential problems against all the existing rules when proposing a change. [;)]

Netting doesn't really buy you anything as the netting was to keep subs out, it does not prevent torpedoes to be air dropped on the other side should space be enough. I very much doubt we could ever amass the required data. Couple to this that ports were built up during the timeframe of the game. At what point during the building does the netting get installed? do subs attack inside the port until this point in time? Add to this that netting was NOT 100% effective, even subs got through it once or twice to have some fun on the other side.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 4:38:31 PM)

[
quote:

quote]ORIGINAL: Brady
The whole crux of my argument was based on the fact that Lunga (gudacanal off henderson) was considered a port by UV and I suspect similar locations are in WiTP. The 4 examples I sighted were to show that the Japanese did consider atacking ships at that type of location viable with torpedoes. The ships were moving on at least one ocashion but this was because they knew the Bettys were comming and dispersed, this is not realy pertanant to the point I was making which was that they would, could, and did atack ships in similar situation. Which goes directly toward the point at hand which is largely based on how the game defines ports and how they endevore to protect ships witehn them.


Hi Brady. Just want to clarify things a bit. First, those Bettys were sent off to find and attack the USN CVs, not to attack a port. when they failed to locate them they went looking for shipping at Lunga. They found Turners TF out in Iron bottom sound and attacked and were subsequently virtually wiped out. Its interesting to note that those Bettys passed right over shipping inside Tuligi Harbor and did not attempt to attack those lame ducks.......hmmm I wonder why?

In game terms the above situation plays as follows. Your Bettys were set on "Naval Attack", you fail to sight USN CV TF, Bettys are directed to the nearest sighted TF. Which happens to be the "UNDOCKED" invasion TF at Lunga.


quote:

As others have said above, and said well, it is lame to think that by merly pushing a button ships should be imune from atack inport's, if anything they were more vulnerable to conventinal bomb and dive bomb atacks by virtue of being tied up.


No they should be immune to torp attack. I believe currently ships docked and disbanded are still subject to bombing attack. Correct? Besides it is not lame at all. As long as they simply limit the number of ships that can be docked or dispanded within a particular size port. This doesnt have to go into every detail of each individulal port. Simply assign generic numbers for each of the current port sizes in the game. Example; size 3 port = X number ships, size 6 port = Y number ships, size 9 = z number ships. Sure its an abstraction and as I wrote earlier some ports might be short changed while others over compensated but it certainly good enough for the scale of the game. There would be no limits on how many ships can be in the hex just how many can be docked or disbanded. All undocked, undispanded ships would be considered outside the port and subject to torp attack.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 4:42:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Further thought on the port sizing option:

Do these ships that can not disband due to port limit cap loose the benefit of reducing flooding damage? do they repair at port rates?

Whole can of worms here, always have to think of all the potential problems against all the existing rules when proposing a change. [;)]

Netting doesn't really buy you anything as the netting was to keep subs out, it does not prevent torpedoes to be air dropped on the other side should space be enough. I very much doubt we could ever amass the required data. Couple to this that ports were built up during the timeframe of the game. At what point during the building does the netting get installed? do subs attack inside the port until this point in time? Add to this that netting was NOT 100% effective, even subs got through it once or twice to have some fun on the other side.


No they do NOT benefit becuase they are not docked. Even in UV undocked TFs within a port recieve no benefits. Its much more realistic. If you have some damgaded undocked ships in a full port hex, you would need to undock some ships to to make room for them. Those undock ships are now subject to torp attack. Its much better simulation than the current ability to put a 1000 ships into a port hex and have all of them reap the benefits.

BTW, I think you are confusing torps nets with sub nets. Torp nests are laid along side ships at berth to prevent torps from striking a ship. Sub nets are typically laid accross harbor entrances to keep subs out.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 4:43:09 PM)

I just made a post on the dev forum which is simple and should resolve the issue.

Basically, the game as is has all the necessary ingredients but one...max port capacity. Perhaps a value of 10 ships per port size value (size 10 port = facilities for 100 ships to disband). Ships which disband are assumed to be within harbor facilities and get the benefits therein...net defences, channels, slips, drydocks, nesting....all things which negate the ability to be torpedoed (Pearl Harbor the exception on turn one). All other ships must be left in TFs and docked until room has been cleared. As per the game, they are vulnerable to torp attack. No need for all these new features being discussed.



Bulldog61 -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 5:03:31 PM)

Hey, we could add a whole new class of ships the Net Tender. For each net tender at a port it decreases the probabilty of torpedo attacks and would force the attacking lba to use bombs.



TIMJOT -> RE: Torpedo Attacks in Ports (4/27/2004 5:10:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I just made a post on the dev forum which is simple and should resolve the issue.

Basically, the game as is has all the necessary ingredients but one...max port capacity. Perhaps a value of 10 ships per port size value (size 10 port = facilities for 100 ships to disband). Ships which disband are assumed to be within harbor facilities and get the benefits therein...net defences, channels, slips, drydocks, nesting....all things which negate the ability to be torpedoed (Pearl Harbor the exception on turn one). All other ships must be left in TFs and docked until room has been cleared. As per the game, they are vulnerable to torp attack. No need for all these new features being discussed.


Thats basically what I have been advocating for, except I would include "docked" ships into the max capacity as well since its docked ships that embark, disembar, load and unload ect.... Not sure what the numbers should be but I dont think it would be too difficult to come up with a consensus.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625