RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (Full Version)

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



Message

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 12:47:26 PM)

For what it may be worth ([8|]) I'll chime in. Accurate PT modelling seems hampered by the naval combat model. They were not exactly ocean-going fleet units, but they are modelled as such in the game.

If kept as they are, they (PT missions) should probably be restricted to combat operations in coastal hexes ONLY, if possible to programme. PTs should not be allowed in any other type of TF. Some sort of solution would be needed for transit between bases through open ocean hexes, perhaps ability to disband back onto AKs).

PT missions should have a size limit, perhaps maximum of six or so.

***(all TFs need a realistic size limit I believe...these monster TFs need to go. For one thing, it will force the players to form many TFs, spreading escorts thin, thereby reducing the number of excess ASW ships players like to form into massive ASW TFs. Dedicated ASW TFs were not very prevalent until there were enough ASW ships IN EXCESS of those needed for escort duties, so potentially, only the Allied player will have enough by 43 for ASW TFs, unless he wants to put all his eggs in one basket and leave the convoys unprotected).

PT torp attack accuracy should be greatly reduced, as they did not have torpedo directors as did DDs, or TDCs as did subs...they basically just pointed and let loose if I understand correctly.

Probability of duds should be high for USN surface vessel torpedoes as well, but they don't appear to have a dud rate at the moment (USN Mk 8 and 15 torps used on PTs and surface combatants sucked almost as bad as the Mk 14s used by subs and were as bad as the Mk 13s used by aircraft).

Somehow, PTs should suffer a "bonus" (defenders secondary and tertiary weapons) fire round in order to close during daylight combat.

Ideally however, I believe that the PT model be more drastically revamped. What if PTs were like torpedo plane squadrons rather than naval TFs? PTs are more like planes than ships in WITP, anyway. They would behave more like PTs I bet, and the defensive fire would be more realistic, as all PTs (now aircraft) would be subject to more realistic defensive fire, they would not be pounded incessantly by multiple hits from BB main guns on down (bizarre how the PTs take so much punishment, let alone can be tracked by main battery turrets which seem to swing like the B17 ball turrets), and the balls necessary to drive these suckers is modelled for pilots (morale/fatigue). Size of squadrons will be fixed...say six or so, and so would the number of squadrons (just research the number of historical squadrons in the various navies and voila, a max amount is set), eliminating the possibility of unlimited hordes of PTs.

Whadya think guys?[8D]



Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 4:30:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
What could be changed is how the AI selects targets for the aircraft. I dont think DBs or TBs should target PTs, but fighters should. So a fighter unit on cap should be given naval attack orders against any visible PT unit within X hexes.


This is a decent solution but not sure if it could be modeled. There are several other problems in the system. No way a PT boat TF gets close enough to engage capital ships, it's just not gonna happen. Not a surprise issue, just so unlikely that it would happen it the first place. Look back over the threads this is not the first time we've seen results like this. Way to frequent occurances of this 'million to 1 shot'

Oh and yeah, I've lost a CA to PT's in one of my PBEM's and the TF was 2 hexes offshore at the time on escort duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
They were not exactly ocean-going fleet units, but they are modelled as such in the game.
<snip>
PT missions should have a size limit, perhaps maximum of six or so.
<snip>
PT torp attack accuracy should be greatly reduced
<snip>
Probability of duds should be high for USN surface vessel
<snip>
should probably be restricted to combat operations in coastal hexes ONLY


Ron states (far better than I could) some of the issues and possible solutions. These need to be looked at soon. If I'm sailing KB 120-180 miles offshore in a 20 ship TF with 8 DD's and have one of my CV's torpedoed by motorboat, I'm giving up PBEM till its fixed.

PT's were used much like the "swiftboats" we're hearing about now in the controversy surrounding Senator Kerry's war record. They worked close to shore or between islands. They didn't form up surface combat missions and sail on the open ocean to engage the Japanese Main Body.



Hortlund -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 4:49:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone
There are several other problems in the system. No way a PT boat TF gets close enough to engage capital ships, it's just not gonna happen. Not a surprise issue, just so unlikely that it would happen it the first place. Look back over the threads this is not the first time we've seen results like this. Way to frequent occurances of this 'million to 1 shot'


There is a reason most fleet units never went close enough to shore to be within enemy PT range you know, and if they did they brought a gazillion DDs as escorts. I cannot say these results are ahistorical because most real life task force commanders would never wander into PT territory. A PT is just as easy to spot as a sub on the surface. But with three times the speed. They are hopeless to target with anything larger than a 40mm gun, and most of the 40mm and lower armament on capital ships could not be depressed enough to target PTs that were close.

Like I said, rain, heavy seas, close to shore. It is not unliklely to have a PT score a lucky hit. And remember that I had something like 10-15 PTs out there in different taskforces looking for those carriers. I think the lesson here is to not venture too close to shore with valuable capital ships.

[image]local://upfiles/1562/Xv657231122.jpg[/image]



2ndACR -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 4:55:57 PM)

I agree, that nothing is wrong with the combat result per se. They did get to me, my complaint is that they are ignored with the targeting routine unless I set a/c at 100' altitude. Which I am reluctant to do, since I can just see my a/c going after a different but much deadlier surface combat force if spotted at 100' and get butchered.



mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 4:58:47 PM)

Hi, My view (and this applies to the impact of mines in UV and to a lesser extent WITP)

In actual practice torpedo boats and mines are meant to discourage enemy forces from entering a hex or a hex in range. In actual practice most navies in WW2 stayed clear of enemy torpedo boats and minefields. (once discovered)

In Wargame practice players tend to mass much more then actual. (they place more mines and torpedo boats.)
In Wargame practice players think "PT boats never hurt anything" and so boldly go right among them.

Then when the PT boat has a success they say "Bug, Incorrect, PT's never did that"

Well your right they never did. Also they were never employed in mass and the enemy did not try to tangle with them. No one (on either side) can prove squat in regards to what would or would not have occured under these conditions. We are left with what the programmer/designers want the effect to be once they see how the players are employing them. By nature I never use PT in TF of more then 6 but I might have 3 or 4 such TF in a single hex. (The hex is a 60 mile hex) As Japan when I want to deal with PT I send a TF of 6 or fewer DD and let them clear the PT out. I've let PT hit at least one of my transport TF in each PBEM game so far and I can see no "Uber" abilty on their part.



Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:00:50 PM)

Panzer, rain and heavy seas would make life miserable for the PT's. Again, they were not used as surface combat TF's that went out to open seas to engage the Main Body. Your opponent states he was 120 miles from shore when attacked.



mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:02:38 PM)

Hi, He didn't post weather conditions or sea state. 120 miles is less then 6 hours away for PT's not running at full speed.
Now in a night attack against enemy TF without radar.............



Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:07:49 PM)

I am getting so tired of hearing "it's the way players use them that's the problem"

Maybe, but please don't ignore the fact that this happens. Your answer dodges the problem Players currently can:

1. Station PT's anywhere on the map (100's of miles from shore and still move them 1 hex at a time)
2. Amass HUGE squadrons of them.
3. Form surface combat TF's and hunt other surface combat TF's several hexes away from shore.

None of the above should happen, additionally the torpedo accuracy and lack of duds may be an issue.

Instead of saying players can do this forcing yet another house rule, shouldn't this at least be looked at? If it can't be fixed, fine, we'll deal with house rules, but lets hear from the team.



2ndACR -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:10:57 PM)

Weather was clear for the most part in that area. I would have to re-run the turn to be sure. Maybe some scattered showers in the area.

We are getting off target a little. I have no complaint per se with the RESULT. Only that they are IGNORED by the normal air targeting routine unless set at 100' altitude. Which would be fine if I could PICK my targets. Since I can not pick my targets, and agree that I should not be able to, I am reluctant to do so. I can just see my a/c taking off after that lovely 4 CA TF that suddenly appears and getting butchered.

Maybe letting CAP engage PT boats as a target of opportunity if they are within the CAP range setting would work. Cap fighters would swoop down and engage them. We had opportunity attacks in BTR, so I know GG knows how to program that in.



UncleBuck -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:24:01 PM)

I agree, PT's were defensive arms. They were point defense. All of the major and some of the minor combatants of WW2 had some form of PT boat. They did it for a reason. I woudl liek to see some of the ideas here workied in, like the MTB Squadrons, Fatigue Morale, etc. on PT's. OTOH people need to remember that a PT boat is a light fast target. WOudl you venture a TF into an area where 6 Submarines were lurking? (one hex) The fact that in WW2 PT's were used as Barge busters, and coastal patrol craft does not mean that if they had the chance to attack larger ships they woudl be useless. In Daylight, they woudl be in deep trouble, and more likely to get killed, but, if they are used where they are intended, within 120 miles of the coast, I see no problem. One thing that is not in teh game is what happens if a PT squadron attacks an enemy TF in Restricted waters? Say a HArbor, or around one of the many Atolls, or SMall island CLusters? Let's see, they come in drawing a massive 4 feet of water, Launch there torpedoes,at heavy ships, and what happens? The Heavy ships have a choice, play with the throtle, and make Minor Rudder corrections and hope that they can make the Torpedoes miss, or they can take radical evasive manuvers and hope they do nto go out of the channel, hit an uncharted rock or rip themselves open on that reef.

Planes should attack PT's without being set to 100' attack, but they shoudl nto be overly successful. Instead of sinking or damageing the PT's they should thwart the attacks. A common practice for PT's t avoid dive bombers was to wait 'till the bomb was RELEASED and then revese course , causing teh bomb to miss. If you are using planes that have no bombs, and are strafeing, be prepared to lose planes. They have 6 50 calier machine guns, and well you are coming in low. The one you are shooting at may be supressed but the other 4 or 5 are not.

I think instead of having the unlimited PT boat available, I think that they must be tied to a MTB command, like other units. You sttion MTBS 4 at Tarawa. they have a Max of 18 MTB's. You can use it as a 18 boat squad or you can split it and have 3 squadrons of 6. Up to you, but it is not pull up an AK, and start pumping out as many as you want without support. Now on the positive for teh PT's woudl be to allow PT's that are stationed with there Unit MTBS 4 for example, will load torpedoes on the PT's without an AGP in a Size 1 port with 20K+ supply. They woudl nto have sent the MTBS out there without a means to reload. If you want to set one of the Partial units to another base MTBS 4/1 (6 boats) they get teh load they have, can re-fuel and load up AA ammo but must have an AGP or size 5 port, like we have now for Torpedoes.

UB



mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 5:45:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone

I am getting so tired of hearing "it's the way players use them that's the problem"

Maybe, but please don't ignore the fact that this happens. Your answer dodges the problem Players currently can:

1. Station PT's anywhere on the map (100's of miles from shore and still move them 1 hex at a time)
2. Amass HUGE squadrons of them.
3. Form surface combat TF's and hunt other surface combat TF's several hexes away from shore.

None of the above should happen, additionally the torpedo accuracy and lack of duds may be an issue.

Instead of saying players can do this forcing yet another house rule, shouldn't this at least be looked at? If it can't be fixed, fine, we'll deal with house rules, but lets hear from the team.



Hi, PT boats out of fuel move 2 hexes per turn (1 per movement phase) and if they encounter enemy surface TF they are sitting ducks.

The rest is PLAYER CONTROLED ACTIONS. The AI does not use them in this manner. If you don't like the way you PBEM opponent plays thats a different matter. Some people actually want to know what would have happended if a weapon system was employed in another way. I see no reason to use more then 6 per TF but that is just me. I think if one of my IJN opponents left a TF for 3 days 120 miles from my PT's I would have sent them out. (I would not have expected many to return) Under normal conditions a PT is a poor target for air attack. The method for attacking them in WITP via air is exactly the same as UV. Your not going to score many bomb hits on a PT boat running at full speed.
If your enemy does what you consider "gamey" tactics use them back. If he puts 20 PT boats in TF send a TF of 20 DD after them .



Twotribes -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 6:11:27 PM)

Well as long as we are complaining about PT boat tactics, lets complain about ahistorical Japanese tactics.

The IJA and IJN hated each other with a passion. The Navy wanted more landings, the army didnt go along. Yet in PBEM you have the Japanese player attacking out of air range support and in waters that would be dangerous to the Ships. The army wouldnt have gone along with these plans, yet that isnt modeled in the game.

If you want to remake PT boats so they cant be used a historically then add a level of PP for the use of Japanese Army units.



Nikademus -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 6:52:00 PM)

two potential issues with PT's (in my opinion) based on my play experience.

1.) too accurate. PT's had no FC and, at least in the USN case, the tubes were cited in such a way that you could pretty much just launch 1 torp at a time. To launch the other tube you had to veer around and set up your shot again (usually while avoiding counterbattery fire) Further, while it was sometimes possible for PT's to sneak or ambush
enemy ships, more often than not they'd have to fight their way in and launch their fish, all the while dodging and weaving to avoid enemy fire and ships. All in all, PT's were not very successful at this. They achieved a couple successes but their primary contribution was in keeping the enemy honest and on their toes. Even as late as 1944, mass nighttime PT attacks were largely ineffective. (Surgeo Strait for example)

2.) Surface combat model seems to treat them as major warships so i've noted the tendancy for the PT's to be able to make attacks on enemy major warships (cruisers, battleships, CV's) even if said TF's have very heavy screens of escorts. More realistically, PT's should usually skirmish with the escorts if they are present in large enough #'s. There should be a "chance" for a PT to slip through into the middle of a TF and attack a prime target, but these should be the exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. Day or night

#2, may be responsible at least in part for #1. It may be that PT's aren't so "accurate" as much as they just get too many shots at the big ships too often, when instead they should, assuming the player took the precaution of properly escorting his major assets) be mixing it up more with the fringe elements of the TF in question, i.e. the DD's.

I had a notable experience with the above. A test game with Kid. He managed to do a mid ocean intercept and in broad daylight torpedoed 1 or IIRC even two of CV's with his PT's. That was bizarre to say the least [X(]

It also seems fairly easy to mass produce PT as well.



dday -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 6:53:18 PM)

Now you got me wanna watchs Mchale's Navy[:D]



esteban -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 7:08:43 PM)

Historically, I think the BB Fuso (At Suragio Straight) was the only ship larger than a DD which was ever hit by PT boats. However, the Fuso also came under destroyer torpedo attack, and exploded after being torpedoed. There were very few survivors left, so it is hard to say exactly which ship(s) launched the fatal torpedos.



Nikademus -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 7:09:55 PM)

Fuso was hit by a spread of torpedoes launched by DD's.

The PT attacks went in first but were unsuccessful and were brushed aside.



brisd -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:36:58 PM)

quote:

The combat was very one sided. It was allied surprise, allies fire on surprised japanese ships, then teh combat was over. No japanese ships fired a single round. The weather was rain. It is hardly unthinkable that in a situation with pouring rain, poor visibility and heavy seas, a surface taskforce too close to shore is surprised by 5 small PTs that come storming at 40knots. The PTs come from land so they are hard to spot against the shoreline and they are really small and the japanese ships are huge as houses silouetted against the open sea.



Heavy seas? Sure, that combat results looks fine. Nope, that makes it even more crazy, small boats bouncing up and down trying to make 40 knots and fire at cruisers and destroyers. I agree that in certain conditions close to land PT's should be able to ambuse a real fleet. But this one looks suspect and the conditions that brought it about even more so, aircraft ignoring them and allowing them to get so close. I won't be playing PBEM till fixed, the rest of you enjoy yourselves. I just want to know how many PT boats I can get from the steel of a Yamato class BB as they are obviously the superior weapon system? This same falacy is like saying the hundreds of attack boats the USSR had were as effective as the USA's blue water navy.



brisd -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:38:35 PM)

quote:

I think the lesson here is to not venture too close to shore with valuable capital ships.


The lesson is to not play WITP till fixed.



Nikademus -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:41:43 PM)

You can always use a house rule too. No PT movement beyond the base assigned to (Transit excepted) and limit the # of PT TF's per base.

Myself, i dont use PT's all that much.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:43:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

You can always use a house rule too. No PT movement beyond the base assigned to (Transit excepted) and limit the # of PT TF's per base.

Myself, i dont use PT's all that much.


Exactly. House rules work fine in this case.



brisd -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:47:39 PM)

quote:

If you want to remake PT boats so they cant be used a historically then add a level of PP for the use of Japanese Army units.


What is historical about the combat results in question? I'll go along with that idea when there are no 2nd Marine Division deploying to SoPac in '41, etc. It is not just the game that is fubar, many players think they're in a John Wayne movie instead of WW2.



brisd -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:50:43 PM)

Yes house rules are ok for those who use them, problem solved. The list of house rules grows longer each hour, it's turning into a D&D gaming convention.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:51:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

Yes house rules are ok for those who use them, problem solved. The list of house rules grows longer each hour, it's turning into a D&D gaming convention.


Takes a long time to break in this puppy.



Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 8:57:40 PM)

Absolutely, 120 miles is not "too close to shore" And thankfully someone else picked up on the bad weather and high seas.

Also Mogami, those PT's out in the shipping lanes can get refueled by another TF. Yes, I monitor my PBEM games and my current opponents are great. But I have had a game where 2 months in, I discover stuff like this that ruins the whole experience for me.

I don't like making 'house rules' and I abhor gamey tactics and crazy results. Don't force me to do these things because something modelled in the game needs a look.

PT's should not trash a battle fleet, especially in bad weather

PT's are too accurate in their attacks on warships (seem fine on transports and barges)

PT's should not be at sea 100's of miles from a base

It should be impossible to form PT TF's in massive numbers of ships.

If it can't be changed, no problem, just have the team let us know. I know I can use house rules to work around this and I will if I have to, just wanting to know if this is on the list or not.



2ndACR -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 9:03:22 PM)

Weather was not too bad in the area at the time. Just hate the idea of PT boats being ignored unless YOU set the altitude at 100' and run the risk of them taking out after a heavy AA TF. Of course there is the fact that they were able to cruise in amongst my TF, penetrating my escort screen without being spotted to get within torp range of my CV's unhindered.


I tossed it up to the wish list earlier.



brisd -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 9:04:53 PM)

It is a complex game and still requires alot of tweaking and I'm sure no one will be totally pleased with final outcome, compromise is the watchword.[;)]



Nikademus -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 9:07:52 PM)

one is never going to get completely away from house rules. The more complex the game, and most importantly, the more freedom and control the players are given, the easier and more likely it will be that players can use assets in ways that the developers might not have been able to anticipate or that other players may consider ahistorical or "gamey". (and admitedly, not all agree on what constitutes what)

Its particularily hard in a game this size...hard just to test items much less sit back and say, "well what if i do 'this' with it?"



Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 9:09:56 PM)

That it is brisd. It is by far the greatest wargame ever produced and I will play this thing till my death (which my be sooner than I think according to my wife who says I spend too much time conquering the SRA) [:D]

As always, spirited debate brings out the best. We see all sides, get lots of opinions, and in the end we are united behind our game.



Twotribes -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 9:17:30 PM)

It shouldnt be possible for the Japanese player to attack out of air support and across the breadth of DEI on turn one either.

My experience with PT boats is they are nearly useless against major combatants.

I have noticed most complaints are centered around making life easier for the Japanese player.

Who invaded Guadalcanal in August 1942? Are you saying the 2nd Marine Division didnt exsist in December 1941? How about the 40th Division it comes in early too, shall we get rid of it too?

The fact is if the Allied player deploys his assets to soon he is likely to lose them. It seems again to me most of these complaints center around letting the Japanese secure bases that they never did historicly, for example Noumea and Canton.

If the Japanese Player can use his forces ahistoricly then so can the Allied player.

The only honest complaint I see here is that the Japanese should be able to intercept the PT boats with Air, that makes sense, change the mechanics so that the aircraft will attack PT boats.

I also have no problem with setting a cap on fleet size. 6 or 8 seems reasonable.

My personal experience is that PT boats arent very accurate and arent very effective against larger combatants. But the potential is there. As it should be.

What about the very real fact that the Japanese services did NOT get along, the army did not like cooperating with the Navy, that isnt shown in the game at all. No way the Army High Command would agree to send troops to some of the ports that get hit on turn one by an agrressive Japanese player. Whats good for the Japanese is Good for the allied player, Japanese players want freedom to do as they please then so should allied players.



Moquia -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 10:34:30 PM)

I did some test a while back with pt-boats (thread in support forum). They are definitely not the über-boats some posters here seem to think. Also the allies don't get more than 1 or 2 a month, so if an allied player uses them aggressively they will soon be gone.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5917969