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


Damien Thorn -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/1/2004 10:52:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd

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.


No, just use the editor to change the PT class to PG. A PG is not much different from a PT excapt it doesn't gt the special code advantages (ambush, all but immune to air attack, and God knows what else).




Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 4:44:07 AM)

Nobody commented on my PTs as Aircraft idea![;)][&:][:D] Too rich or too late?




Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 4:55:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Nobody commented on my PTs as Aircraft idea![;)][&:][:D] Too rich or too late?


Not a bad notion, just a little late. I would speculate that the re-coding would make
it impractical for a "patch". Probably a more realistic "restriction" would be to limit
PT boat anti-shipping efforts to "reaction moves" of maybe 2-3 hexes from a base.
Let them chase barges to their heart's content, but only be able to engage major
surface assets in a short reaction move from an established PT Base. At least that
would keep them from chasing Kido Butai around the ocean.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:00:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Nobody commented on my PTs as Aircraft idea![;)][&:][:D] Too rich or too late?


Not a bad notion, just a little late. I would speculate that the re-coding would make
it impractical for a "patch". Probably a more realistic "restriction" would be to limit
PT boat anti-shipping efforts to "reaction moves" of maybe 2-3 hexes from a base.
Let them chase barges to their heart's content, but only be able to engage major
surface assets in a short reaction move from an established PT Base. At least that
would keep them from chasing Kido Butai around the ocean.


Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.




Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:05:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.


Are you implying that someone should actually READ your ENTIRE POST??? Next thing
you know you'll be expecting 2by3 to pay attention to these things......




mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:07:29 AM)

Hi, Once again I think it is a case of wanting to change the game rather then playing practice. If you keep a CV TF 120 miles from an enemy base for 3 days SOMETHING is going to come out at night and want to play. OK so a player who had never played Japan in UV might not know how to deal with PT via air but it was allowed for all 3 days if the groups had been set properly. Divebombers and Torpdeo bombers would not have produced the desired results. (They also do not attack submarines)
The PT boats were built to prevent that type of enemy behaviour. (Camping out in reach)
120 miles is not a problem for a PT and we seem to be assuming the Pacific is always a raging tempest tossed area. (If that were so we would have to assume the CV could not launch aircraft)
Any aircombat TF has escort but in addition when you think the enemy might actually engage with a surface TF you place a surface combat TF with the aircombat TF. This TF will always be engaged before your CV TF is. It is in the code. A surface TF must be attacked before another TF in the same hex with a lower surface combat priority.
The PT will not be effective unless you allow them to be effective and in this case they must be effective or there is no reason to bother including them.
I've been attacked by many PT and yes they have from time to time hit one of my capitol ships. (But I always have a surface TF with any CV TF that I believe there is a remote chance of encountering a enemy surface TF so they have never hit one of my CV) (And none of my CV TF have ever been attacked by an enemy surface TF although surface combat did occur in the same hex)




Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:21:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.


Are you implying that someone should actually READ your ENTIRE POST??? Next thing
you know you'll be expecting 2by3 to pay attention to these things......


???Whoa, Nellie![;)]




Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:22:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.


Are you implying that someone should actually READ your ENTIRE POST??? Next thing
you know you'll be expecting 2by3 to pay attention to these things......


???Whoa, Nellie![;)]


GOTCHA!




Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:44:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Once again I think it is a case of wanting to change the game rather then playing practice. If you keep a CV TF 120 miles from an enemy base for 3 days SOMETHING is going to come out at night and want to play. OK so a player who had never played Japan in UV might not know how to deal with PT via air but it was allowed for all 3 days if the groups had been set properly. Divebombers and Torpdeo bombers would not have produced the desired results. (They also do not attack submarines)
The PT boats were built to prevent that type of enemy behaviour. (Camping out in reach)
120 miles is not a problem for a PT and we seem to be assuming the Pacific is always a raging tempest tossed area. (If that were so we would have to assume the CV could not launch aircraft)
Any aircombat TF has escort but in addition when you think the enemy might actually engage with a surface TF you place a surface combat TF with the aircombat TF. This TF will always be engaged before your CV TF is. It is in the code. A surface TF must be attacked before another TF in the same hex with a lower surface combat priority.
The PT will not be effective unless you allow them to be effective and in this case they must be effective or there is no reason to bother including them.
I've been attacked by many PT and yes they have from time to time hit one of my capitol ships. (But I always have a surface TF with any CV TF that I believe there is a remote chance of encountering a enemy surface TF so they have never hit one of my CV) (And none of my CV TF have ever been attacked by an enemy surface TF although surface combat did occur in the same hex)


OK, Russ. I've had beer but NO pizza! Therefore, the beer is speaking predominantly.[:D]

PTs are not naval vessels perse, aside from the fact they are Navy manned. One can't assume they are kamikazes. The ability the game gives them presenty is exactly that though. They do not suffer morale checks. They do not travel at 350 miles/hr and can't be "vectored" to a deep sea hex to engage a "vastly superior surface force" in a mid ocean naval engagement if a player decides to loiter 120 miles off shore. Coupled with this is the naval combat model, which includes them as major surface combatants and allows them to trade blows with said "vastly superior surface forces" on not exactly even terms (PTs have the advantage more often than not, as one PT may receive the concentrated fire of defensivce ships while the others a few hundred yards away don't receive any fire) and close to point blank range and fire torps under ideal conditions (like they were subs or DDs with director/TDC control)

Point is ( I'm getting lost) is that it should not be that PLAYERS decide to use flawed forces the way they do, the GAME MECHANICS should limit them (the players) from doing so. This way, there is no need for work arounds and such by the betas which perpetuate and embrace inherent flaws which may OR may not exist.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:47:00 AM)

That kinda makes sense. I'll give it a redo in the next installment.[;)] 7.0 Holsten "Festbocks" talkin' now![sm=crazy.gif][sm=party-smiley-012.gif]




UncleBuck -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:01:12 PM)

I replied to your PT as aircraft idea Ron, I am hurt you didn't read teh entire diatribe [:D]




Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 5:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
OK, Russ. I've had beer but NO pizza! Therefore, the beer is speaking predominantly.[:D]

PTs are not naval vessels perse, aside from the fact they are Navy manned. One can't assume they are kamikazes. The ability the game gives them presenty is exactly that though. They do not suffer morale checks. They do not travel at 350 miles/hr and can't be "vectored" to a deep sea hex to engage a "vastly superior surface force" in a mid ocean naval engagement if a player decides to loiter 120 miles off shore. Coupled with this is the naval combat model, which includes them as major surface combatants and allows them to trade blows with said "vastly superior surface forces" on not exactly even terms (PTs have the advantage more often than not, as one PT may receive the concentrated fire of defensivce ships while the others a few hundred yards away don't receive any fire) and close to point blank range and fire torps under ideal conditions (like they were subs or DDs with director/TDC control)

Point is ( I'm getting lost) is that it should not be that PLAYERS decide to use flawed forces the way they do, the GAME MECHANICS should limit them (the players) from doing so. This way, there is no need for work arounds and such by the betas which perpetuate and embrace inherent flaws which may OR may not exist.


Ron drunk or not that's an excellent summation of the problem. People are using them as capital ships when under game mechanics they more closely resemble air squadrons (Uncle Buck made this point as well)

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned changing the class to PG's. Perhaps this should be explored more? Again, the more game mechanics necessitate the need for house rules, the more it needs to be looked at.

House rules should be for things like "only PH port attack on turn 1" or "only invading when you have air cover" not for things like "Don't send PT fleets 180 miles offshore to engage the main body" Sorry folks that's a little more than experimenting with different uses for various weapons platforms.




steveh11Matrix -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 7:17:46 PM)

A stab in the dark: How about limiting in code PT boats to shallow water hexes, which has to have been their principle deployment zone?

Even if it's not 100% correct, it's better than what I see reported here, which is at least 75% wrong...

Steve.




Twotribes -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 7:50:48 PM)

I dont agree. The fact is that PT boats WERE considered expendable and WERE sent on missions where they could reasonably expect not to return.

If the Japanese player CHOSES to park his Carrier Task Force near enough to a base with PT boats for them to come out to play, with out adequate surface ship protection, he deserves what ever happens.

The only thing that needs to be addressed is how the aircraft react to PT Boats, a change allowing fighters to come down to strafe them is a reasonable request, trying to tie them to a port so they are useless anywhere else is not.




freeboy -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 8:05:58 PM)

It is not only that pt are used ronly I mean wrongly[X(] pun intended Ron, it is that they take almost no damage from capital ships at range ... if in an actual sea battle no bb tf commander would let a pt, very fragile boat come near enough to lunch his torps...
Just at 10 - 15k they would be spotted and destroyed.. quickly...
There are no super fast boats like today, they could not magically get inside 10k yards...
and even at those ranges would come under such fire as to make an attak really stupid.

I do not have a problem with pts as cannon cfodder against capital ships forcing them to expend amunition. I do not have a problem with using them against slower tf, transports etc.. but I do see GLARING problems with the way they interact in day surface battles....

And in regard to air attacks, ?? what is up with that?
So the great pt debate goes on... this one will be around for awhile I guess...




UncleBuck -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 8:12:50 PM)

Freeboy, have you ever been at sea on a Ship? Have you ever gone up to teh observation decks let alone the Yard Arms? I ahe been up a Mast 200 Feet above teh water, and I had a hard time seeign the Fishing boats in San Diego Harbor at 3km.

PT BOats Submarines and other small boats are hard to pick up. Radar against small boats is nearly useless in WW2, as they coudl nto pick out the boat from the sea clutter. Visual sighting was required. Lookouts woudl not see teh PT's untill they were fairly close, and the Large guns on BB's and Cruisers would have difficulty tracking a fast closing boat.

The PT or Sub would be able to and did track large surface ships at 10KM away, since the Mast would stick up above the horizon. It would just be a matter of biding there time and pickng the moment.

If you get in a position for PT's to get to your Surface forces they can do damage. The PT's should have to fight through screening vessels and be suceptable to Aircraft, but the Heavies are not immune to the MTB.

UB




freeboy -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/2/2004 8:13:16 PM)

quote:

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.


Ron,
Having limits on pt usage vs limits on ability is agreat distinction... do you think a combat model change is in order? Certainly seems so.. thanks




Popoi -> PT Killers (9/2/2004 10:34:09 PM)

I agree that PTs should be hard to hit, and hard to find in naval searches that are set at high altitudes.

BUT
(a) If you have naval search set at below 1000 feet, you should be able to SPOT them. Since they can create a tremendous wake if running fast.

(b) Air should at least make an ATTEMPT to strike at them, even IF their approach altitude is 10k or whatever.

OR

(c) you should be able to have ASW missions apply to BOTH PTs and Submarines. That way you could have a squadron assigned to ASW duty hunt for both Subs and PTS? Maybe that's a bad idea, since you would want to put a fighter or fighter bomber on PT hunting duty, but a level bomber on ASW duty...


Here's a n00b question..

- Do PTs fight well against PTs?
- Can you have PTs accompany a TF (escort)
- could you then refuel the PTs at sea

that would give you good PT protection.

what's the ultimate PT killer in the game?




UncleBuck -> RE: PT Killers (9/2/2004 11:34:53 PM)

The Ultimate Killer of everythign in the game is Coastal Guns. they Kill PT's dead.

Yes you can put PT's in a TF and they will be parasitic to the main ships. I have not seen PT vs PT, JP has none, but I have seen PT versuse Barge (AG) and they do ok, better than teh barges.

I still want to try the LCI(G) in he anti barge role. Better durability heavier gun but slower, much slower.

UB




mogami -> RE: PT Killers (9/2/2004 11:36:48 PM)

Hi, Do you know what one of the largest fears a present day USN Battlegroup commander has in the Gulf? High speed motor boats. You don't see them and when you do it is too late to call for air. Large guns are useless. Today in the Gulf every US warship has machineguns and 20mm manned 24/7 for protection against those cigarette boats and the TF is over 100 miles from the coast. (I know I stood my share of watches behind a .50cal with the CO hopping up and down in CIC because he thought small boats were in the area)




tsimmonds -> RE: PT Killers (9/2/2004 11:39:32 PM)

quote:

JP has none

JP has 6. Woo Hoo!




mogami -> RE: PT Killers (9/2/2004 11:45:14 PM)

Hi, After our 50 Irish monks finish entering every single ship and midget suub into the OOB the IJN will have over 200.




Williamb -> RE: PT Killers (9/2/2004 11:45:59 PM)

I wonder if its the very fast speed of the PTs taht causes increased damage ?

For example I had a group of my PTs ambush a group of Japanese ships in shallow water unloading at a beach. There were two TFs there a group of APs and a TF of PC and PGs running ASW.

The PTS got a "Crossing the T" result on the APs. They sank two and damaged two more.

THEN the AWD TF came in after them (I preseumed that the PTs had used their speed to get past them earlier)

Again the PTS got a "Crossing the T" result. This time they torpedoed two PCs and sank one of them.

All of this with minimal damage done to the PTs.

The VERY next turn this SAME group of PTs got AMBUSHED by a Japanese TF consiting of Two BBs and their escourts.The BBs and escourts shelled them at long range and sank 4 of the 5 PTs without taking any return fire.

Just got feeling that SPEED is the key factor here. The PTS ambushed the Japan landing force and did alot of damage. Conversly THEY got ambushed and couldnt do a damn thing.




mogami -> RE: PT Killers (9/3/2004 12:07:33 AM)

Hi, I had 5 PT attack one of my transport TF's My TF had 2 DD as escort. The PT were shot up by 12.7mm guns. If I catch PT with a TF of DD only I find that 1 hit from a 4.7in sinks the PT but the AA MG murder the PT as well.




Williamb -> RE: PT Killers (9/3/2004 1:40:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Do you know what one of the largest fears a present day USN Battlegroup commander has in the Gulf? High speed motor boats. You don't see them and when you do it is too late to call for air. Large guns are useless. Today in the Gulf every US warship has machineguns and 20mm manned 24/7 for protection against those cigarette boats and the TF is over 100 miles from the coast. (I know I stood my share of watches behind a .50cal with the CO hopping up and down in CIC because he thought small boats were in the area)


In fact this just happened near Iraq.

A small ship rammed a USN Carrier. The Captain of the Ship is in hot water for allowing it to happen. This was despite the fact the small ship had been spotted on radar several hours before.

Carrier’s run-in with dhow raises red flags
By MATTHEW DOLAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© July 31, 2004

How could a small boat designed for fishing in the Persian Gulf get so close to a multibillion-dollar American carrier equipped with state-of-the-art radar and armed with its own air force?

That’s the question Navy investigators are still asking after the carrier John F. Kennedy struck and sank the mysterious boat in the Persian Gulf on July 22.

No survivors or remains from the small boat, known as a dhow, have been recovered. The crew of the Mayport, Fla.-based carrier and its Virginia Beach-based air wing did not sustain any injuries from the collision, Navy officials said. No structural damage to the carrier was reported.

But the little-noticed accident, now under review by an admiral sent from the Pentagon, could raise serious questions about the Navy’s ability to protect its own ships. Small suicide boats have already attacked larger Navy ships or their crews in the region on at least two occasions in recent years.

In 2000, a bomb-laden skiff blew a 40-by-20-foot hole in the Norfolk-based Cole while the destroyer was refueling in Yemen. The explosion killed 17 sailors and injured 42 others.

In April, three crew members from the Virginia Beach-based Firebolt died after a dhow exploded near the coastal patrol boat’s boarding team in the Persian Gulf.

Other reports indicate that terrorists have attempted to strike Navy ships close to shore or while transiting maritime chokepoints such as the Straits of Gibraltar.

But a spokesman for the Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain said that it was too early to speculate on the cause of the accident, much less the intentions of the dhow.

“It’s a bit premature,” Cmdr. James Graybeal said by telephone Friday. “We need to let the investigation run its course.”

Other Navy officials said that they did not worry in general whether ships such as aircraft carriers were able to protect themselves adequately.

“There is an ongoing investigation, but I don’t have any overall concerns about ship self-defense,” said Rear Adm. John D. Stufflebeem , assistant deputy chief of naval operations who previously led the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group.

But Paul K. Van Riper proved recently that the “4½ acres of American floating sovereignty,” as deployed aircraft carriers are sometimes called, are not completely impenetrable.

Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, commanded an enemy force “Red Team” during the $250 million war game known as Millennium Challenge in 2002. He was able to sink an American carrier using a salvo of surface-to-surface missiles, but his overall naval strategy also employed swarming small boats.

“The Navy took that part seriously,” he said in an interview this week.

Traditionally, carriers post sailors standing watch 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Graybeal said. Flattops are also protected by an air wing packed with surveillance aircraft and usually ringed by an armada of destroyers, cruisers and other ships.

The Kennedy had only been in the gulf for 12 days when it struck the dhow at about 10:20 p.m. during night flight operations.

Evidently, someone on the Kennedy’s crew spotted the dhow. Graybeal would only say that “it’s my understanding that the ship was maneuvering to avoid contact with the dhow.”

After the sinking, the mine countermeasures ship Dextrous joined the British multi-role hydrographic and oceanographic survey vessel Echo in an effort to locate any survivors.

Navy officials said they know little about the sunken dhow. They do not know the boat’s nationality or its purpose, Graybeal said.

Although the Navy has asked for any information about the boat in neighboring countries through its embassies, no one has come forward to say where the boat came from or whether it was manned at the time.

A debris field has been located, but Graybeal said he did not have details about what it contained.

In the gulf, dhows are often made with wood and sometimes outfitted with sails.

They are used for fishing, trade and transportation. But it is not uncommon for dhows to be used as smuggler’s boats, which could be why no one has come forward so far.

Rear Adm. Evan M. Chanik, who works as director of the programming division for the chief of naval operations, flew from the United States to the region to lead the investigation and report back to 5th Fleet.




Caltone -> RE: PT Killers (9/3/2004 4:01:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Do you know what one of the largest fears a present day USN Battlegroup commander has in the Gulf? High speed motor boats. You don't see them and when you do it is too late to call for air. Large guns are useless. Today in the Gulf every US warship has machineguns and 20mm manned 24/7 for protection against those cigarette boats and the TF is over 100 miles from the coast. (I know I stood my share of watches behind a .50cal with the CO hopping up and down in CIC because he thought small boats were in the area)


In my 20 years as a Marine and with most of that time assigned to the 2nd Marines, I spent plenty of time aboard ships in the gulf. That will be the commander's concern (not fears) now, because there isn't much of anything else for the enemy to use. The war on terror has changed the battlefield.

That said, we aren't losing warships to suicide motor boats either. Even the Cole was hit in port. Look, PT boats were 80' long, operated in groups, and left wakes. A TF of these sliding up to Kido Butai 120-180 miles offshore and launching torpedoes into the carriers is a million to one shot or more. Throw in some weather and in becomes near impossible. We've seen this happen too many times in this game for it to be a million to one shot. Please try and picture this scenario in your mind in anything but a John Wayne movie.

Why can't the testers admit this now that the game is released? We seem to have many examples of the problem. It's a similar issue with Allied ASW strenght. Upon release we heard it was the tester's concensus that US ASW was too strong. Several players concur. Now we hear its fine form everyone. Why the change?

And a little P.S. to the testers:

Don't be so defensive all the time. I understand you feel like WitP is a part of you in some way and it is. We followed this game all the way and what you see on these forums are fellow lovers of the game. It's a part of us all now. So we may criticize, we may question, we may be out of line, but take it easy on us. We are all in this together.




Mike Scholl -> RE: PT Killers (9/3/2004 5:41:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I wonder if its the very fast speed of the PTs taht causes increased damage ?
For example I had a group of my PTs ambush a group of Japanese ships in shallow water unloading at a beach. There were two TFs there a group of APs and a TF of PC and PGs running ASW.
The PTS got a "Crossing the T" result on the APs. They sank two and damaged two more.
THEN the AWD TF came in after them (I preseumed that the PTs had used their speed to get past them earlier)
Again the PTS got a "Crossing the T" result. This time they torpedoed two PCs and sank one of them.
All of this with minimal damage done to the PTs.
The VERY next turn this SAME group of PTs got AMBUSHED by a Japanese TF consiting of Two BBs and their escourts.The BBs and escourts shelled them at long range and sank 4 of the 5 PTs without taking any return fire.
Just got feeling that SPEED is the key factor here. The PTS ambushed the Japan landing force and did alot of damage. Conversly THEY got ambushed and couldnt do a damn thing.


Overall, this is the most reasonable and realistic post of PT activitiy I've seen. Suprise
a group of transports and light escorts while they are unloading, get in some licks, and
make a run for it. Run the wrong way, hit a real combat force, and get smacked around.

Truthfully, PT boats were great press and made great movie fodder---but they didn't DO
DIDDLY against major surface ships (especially combatant surface ships). This was
tacitly admitted in 1943 when most gave up a pair ot torpedoes for heavier deck arma-
ment in their role as gunboats to chase barges. I ask each of the supporters of the
"Uber-PT Boats" to furnish some examples of actual success against large surface ships.
They did manage to torpedo one damaged FRIENDLY transport in the Solomans,,,,. but
if they are as capable as many of you suggest, you should be able to point out at least
a half dozen historical instances of such actions in the Pacific. Certainly their best op-
portunity should have been at Suriago Strait..., and they didn't do squat. It was the DD's
who attacked later that got hits and sank one of the Jap BB's. So please fill us all in on
the "actual historical successes" of the mighty PT fleets.




Gudgeon -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 5:56:49 AM)

Who was it that said:

"Don't ask what you can do about PT Boats, but ask what PT boats can do to your opponent."




Twotribes -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 6:46:34 AM)

I have seen ONE person say his carriers got hit by PT boats, and another say his BB got hit. I dont see a "lot" of evidence that the design is faulty. In fact I will bet you that the Carrier Task force was sitting there with no surface fleet to back it up.

Again if you CHOSE to place your carriers where a PT squadron can get at it, and dont provide surface fleet support, it is bad tactics, not bad game design.

The words were 120 miles from shore, thats 2 hexes, a PT boat can travel either 6 or 8 before running out of fuel, so if you want to put your carriers 2 hexes from a port, then dont be suprised if the Allied player sends his PT boats.

It is March 42 in my game and I sure havent seen a ton of PT boats to just build where every I want, I have been able to build exactly 8 so far, 5 from the beginning and finally at the end of February early March 3 more.

I havent seen any great feats by my PT boats either, the ones in Java intercepted a convoy of mostly AP with 2 escorts and lost a pt boat with no hits in a day light attack. So where are the super boats your complaining about again?

My PI ones are out of torpedos and havent sunk anything either. One was sunk by an aircraft as it patrolled the harbor. Again where is this mountain of evidence that PT boats are so super?




mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:04:21 AM)

ay Air attack on TF at 35,62

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
PT PT-34, Shell hits 40, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
PT PT-35, Shell hits 12, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet
4 x A6M2 Zero attacking at 100 feet




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125