RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH

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 (9/3/2004 7:06:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes 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? CAP would have come down and strafed the crap out of the puppies during the day. CVs would have launched a few bombers as well.

2ndACR -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:10:26 AM)
That is because once again the discussion has veered off course. My argument is they (pt boats) are immune to normal air strike routines. They are ignored unless the altitude is pre-set to 100'. Ran a test run on a hunch and sure enough it worked the way I feared. 2 CV's with each fighter group divided and 1 group in each set to 100' naval strike. They completely ignored the PT boat sqdrn 3 hexes away and took out after a LR-CAP'ed surface combat TF with 2 CL's and 3 DD's. Out of 18 attacking fighters, only 5 returned. The CAP was a group of Demons vs Zeros. PT boats should be treated just like any other TF for naval strike. Dive Bombers and Torp planes can use their MG's to engage them and any escorts should drop down and engage them also.

Belphegor -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:13:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR That is because once again the discussion has veered off course. My argument is they (pt boats) are immune to normal air strike routines. They are ignored unless the altitude is pre-set to 100'. Ran a test run on a hunch and sure enough it worked the way I feared. 2 CV's with each fighter group divided and 1 group in each set to 100' naval strike. They completely ignored the PT boat sqdrn 3 hexes away and took out after a LR-CAP'ed surface combat TF with 2 CL's and 3 DD's. Out of 18 attacking fighters, only 5 returned. The CAP was a group of Demons vs Zeros. PT boats should be treated just like any other TF for naval strike. Dive Bombers and Torp planes can use their MG's to engage them and any escorts should drop down and engage them also. Sounds horrible. Did you restrict the range of the low altitude fighers?

mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:28:44 AM)
Hi, I'm not sure you really want the escorts to drop down and attack. The group would be wide open. I realize in WITP there are no random intercepts but still I doubt the escort leader would stop flying protection to engage in a shoot up and expend his ammo. Aircraft have to be at 100 feet to use their guns. The game is still young and I think it will take more then a few examples of PT being bad to change it. Not because anyone is ignoring these posts or just being contrary but because the game is a system of mathamatics interacting and while some things may never actually have occured there was always a possibilty under certain circumstance. I have 4 PBEM going as Japan and through accident error and design I have had several encounters with enemy PT boats in the Philippines and none of them have produced a result I consider unplausable or even unacceptable. Over all my forces have dealt with the PT without too much effort. If we get 1000 people playing (and many play more then 1 game at a time) we are going to see a large variation in outcomes between PT and surface ships. Any change how ever small will require another period while results are compiled. Lets just open a thread where every encounter involving PT boats gets posted. We should be able to collect the results of quite a few PT boat encounters. I would hesitate to except results from set up encounters but would prefer to see all that occur in the course of normal play. Include air attacks on PT. Since there are persons with opposing opinions lets let the numbers help us see the truth.

tabpub -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:57:27 AM)
MTB(PT) thread started. This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over. Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal. 1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly. 2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction. 3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need. 4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization. Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first) and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS. (note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things)

Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:16:30 AM)
One thing I would like to ask of all the supporters of "uber PT's" is that you please cite some historical examples of PT's successfully attacking large ships during the Pacific War. I'll give you one..., PT's did manage to torpedo and sink a FRIENDLY transport in the southern Solomans. But if PT's are as effective a weapon as you maintain, you should certainly be able to provide a half-dozen examples of success against ENEMY ships. And NO, PT's didn't sink anything at Suriago Strait. It was a couple divisions of Fletcher DD's that scored the hits and sank one of the Japanese BB's. PT's did squat. PT's were great press, and wonderful for the movies (you didn't need many actors for crewmen); but they were a failure in their supposedly designed role. This was tacitly admitted in 1943 when half the torpedo tubes were removed from most to allow for the installation of additional and heavier gun armament for their real role as fast gunboats for interdicting Japanese Barge traffic. Forget IN HARMS WAY and THEY WERE EXPENDABLE and other such nonsense and look at the reality.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tabpub MTB(PT) thread started. This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over. Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal. 1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly. 2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction. 3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need. 4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization. Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first) and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS. (note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things) Is this all in reaction to the "PT scourge"? [:D]

2ndACR -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:35:48 AM)
Yep, restricted them to range 3. Of course I deliberatly put the other TF at range 3 also. Just to see which one they would choose. Of course they chose the one they would get massacred at.

tabpub -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: tabpub MTB(PT) thread started. This should prove interesting. If everyone submits true and accurate data, we will have a lot of points to look over. Many people forget things like DL's and MDL's and their effect on things. Personally, I currently am in the "don't go looking for the little beggars" camp right now. Nagumo (a competent, if very cautious admiral) didn't sail thru the Java Sea in late Feb.-early March on his way to the Indian Ocean. He dashed by Darwin, hit it, doubled back to Amboina and then out past Timor to the open sea. He then hit Java some on the way past to the Bay of Bengal. 1. Carriers don't (shouldn't) sit in one place. Move them constantly. 2. If you are going into PT territory, have an airbase near by with Fighters/Fighter-Bombers for PT interdiction. 3. No airbase, have a CV(L) along and use it for anti PT duty if you feel the need. 4. Don't sail as one big gob. Everyone likes too have everyone together, but you have to have some specialization. Ex. CV TF is 2 CV's 2 CA's and 8 DDs SC TF of 1-2 CLs and 4 DD's (to blunt any enemy surface attack first) and if you have the assets, an ASW TF of 2-4 DD/DE to try to beat the bushes for SS. (note, this is my opinion on the subject, not saying it WILL work, but it seems to be the sensible way to organize things) Is this all in reaction to the "PT scourge"? [:D] Not at all; counters the SS scourge, the DD scourge, the CL scourge ad nauseum....[sm=vomit-smiley-020.gif] It also goes along with your ASW analogy. Take a CV group. Instead of 2 CV 4 CA 2 CL and 8 DD all in a big AC TF, you have the "core" group 2 CV 2 CA 1 CL and 2 DD; a "surface screen" of 2 CA 1 CL and 2 DD and a "ASW screen" of 4 DD. All in one hex, with the screens "following" the AC TF, which is set on 0 react. The independent ASW group gets to look for the subs in the hex, the surface action group inderdicts any enemy surface assets and the CVs cover all with cap in the hex. It seems reasonable and I look forward to trying it...once I build up some assets in the game that I am in.

Captain Cruft -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 3:43:11 PM)
A better answer to all of this air->naval stuff would be (IMHO): 1) Have a Cautious Doctrine setting for airgroups set to Naval Attack. When on, this would mean the airgroup would ONLY attack "undefended" targets. Definition of "undefended" to mean no DDs or upwards have been spotted in the TF. 2) Given 1, have all planes dive to 100 feet to do the attack. Everything I've read (which isn't much lol) shows planes attacking ships at low level as a matter of course - it was the only way to get hits. I do not include dive or torpedo bombers in this which are already modelled specially.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 5:54:03 PM)
Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them.

Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 6:15:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them. I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify. And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples?

mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 6:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them. I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify. And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples? Hi, Mike I think that is the wrong way to approach the subject. Since many of the ships on both sides never actually got into combat all we can do is guess what they would do in any possible WITP encounter. Kitikami and Oi never fired a torpedo, The IJN Super Battleships never did anything to justify their existence. The AVG never shot down a single A6M2, The Japanese never entered a hex that contained large CD guns. If we have to get down to cases where we have examples then we also have to acknowledge that in statistics you need a very large number of examples to learn anything conclusive and very few weapons used in WWII have enough actual examples to where any mathematician would say he could conclusively predict the outcome of any hypothetical encounter between this or that. This leaves us the players with what the designer believes. We have to live with that until we can bring very strong evidence to the contrary. All the designer does is set up the system where the results are plausible. In the spread will be rare instances but because of the large number of encounters he only looks that the more common results are plausible and the outrageous is rare. There were outrageous events in WWII that WITP will not recreate. The IJN sub that fired a single spread of 6 torpedoes and hit a USN CV, BB, and DD. We really should not begin looking to prove something never happened because then we will make it impossible and no one can prove such a thing is impossible. In one of my favorite books "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" The heroes space ship is powered by "the improbability drive" All you do to refuel is state something you think improbable and it happens. I think "PT's could not hit a CV" would get you around the universe. Along with examples from American PT boats you should also look at torpedo boats of all navies in WWII and small attack boats in general since their inception. And keep in mind one of their primary purposes is to keep enemy forces out of certain waters. If the enemy can just ignore their existence then way bother having them or have we instead of making the PT too effective ended up making them to weak? I think the PT are about right but the escorting DD not effective enough in defense but once again we only have a few examples in this thread and I myself have been involved in many more PT boat actions then listed here and have no real issue with the results. We have begun collecting the results of PT action in WITP. Let us use this collection to base our opinion and not go looking for example we know don't exist within the limited scope you define. I am no expert. Were German E-boats larger then PT? Italian Torpedo boats how do they compare? Lets just base our opinion on what WITP produces.

Drongo -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify. And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples? Mike, The IJN DD Teruzuki was sunk by 2 PT boats during the Tokyo Express attempts to resupply Guadalcanal in Dec '42. At least one other IJN DD (possibly 2) was torped and damaged during the campaign while another is often counted as a "kill" when it ran into a minefield while dodging a PT attack in the Western Solomons '43 (they're not too choosey with their claims). For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)].

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:17:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk Except for Surigao Straight I can't think of a time that the IJN sailed their capital ships into waters that had PTs in them. I wasn't asking for Capitol Ships. Anything much bigger than a barge would qualify. And the Japanese were certainly sailing combat and transport vessels around during the Soloman's Campaign of 42-43. At least one of them ran over PT-109. I'll accept Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Transports..., any substantial vessel of say 1,000 tons or more (something worth a torpedo). So where are the examples? This leaves us the players with what the designer believes. We have to live with that until we can bring very strong evidence to the contrary. Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drongo For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)]. I knew this discussion sounded familiar.

mogami -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:43:05 PM)
quote: Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels. Hi, Every time I cut off the top of someones head so I can get inside and see what they are thinking they die and I remain in the dark. This time around I think I will pass on trying to quess what anoter person is thinking and instead wait and see what actions they take or do not take. Then I will know what they are thinking. In the meanwhile I will collect data produced by the game they designed and make it available for them to see the results of their efforts.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami quote: Russ, you don't actually believe the designers believe the PTs to be the unsung heroes of the Pacific war do ya? It's simply an unforseen result of an overstretched naval combat model which can't be used for these vessels. Hi, Every time I cut off the top of someones head so I can get inside and see what they are thinking they die and I remain in the dark. This time around I think I will pass on trying to quess what anoter person is thinking and instead wait and see what actions they take or do not take. Then I will know what they are thinking. In the meanwhile I will collect data produced by the game they designed and make it available for them to see the results of their efforts. [:D]

Bradley7735 -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 7:55:59 PM)
Don't forget that they accidentally hit the CL Abukuma in the battle of Suriago St. She was later sunk by LBA because of the crippling torp hit by PT's. I think that battle is a good example of PT attacks. 40 boats are involved. They shoot a lot of torps and lose a couple of PT's to DD fire. And only one lucky hit on a CL. Yes, they do get the occasional lucky hit on warships. No, they should not consistently hit much of anything with Torps. (barges and machine gun fire, yes, but not big ships and torps.) I do agree with Mogami, in that if you go into hex's with known PT's, expect to get hurt. But, I think they are just a little too accurate with them torps right now. I don't use em vs the AI. makes the game less fun.

Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:18:51 PM)
So can PT surface actions take place at anything other than close range? All the ones I see are up close and personal, IOW torpedo range. Does the current model allow capital ships to open fire on PT's before they get into torp range?

Nikademus -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/3/2004 8:24:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Yes, they do get the occasional lucky hit on warships. No, they should not consistently hit much of anything with Torps. (barges and machine gun fire, yes, but not big ships and torps.) Yep. Amazing how many times this reasonable statement can be made only to have the thread go off into a more Black or White stance.

Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 3:12:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drongo Mike, The IJN DD Teruzuki was sunk by 2 PT boats during the Tokyo Express attempts to resupply Guadalcanal in Dec '42. At least one other IJN DD (possibly 2) was torped and damaged during the campaign while another is often counted as a "kill" when it ran into a minefield while dodging a PT attack in the Western Solomons '43 (they're not too choosey with their claims). For what it's worth, there is no doubt they could and did hit IJN warships. Just like B-17s [;)]. So we have one confirmed kill of an enemy vessel, and one of a friendly. Plus two-three "damaged" results This for ALL the PT's in the Pacific during the whole war. Pretty much seems to back my point that PT boats just weren't effective against real ships during the war. I've venture that "uncharted reefs" had a better "kill ratio". Statistically speaking, the evidence just isn't there for PT's being much of a "player" in ship-to-ship combat. That's my point. They were effective at what they wound up doing most..., hunting barges and reccon and nuisance raiding and supressing sub activity close to their bases. But they weren't an important factor in "Surface Actions" with major ships. They are more in the "midget sub" category in this respect..., except that midget subs weren't much good at interdicting Allied "barge" (landing craft) traffic and PT's were effective in that role.

Gudgeon -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 3:34:21 AM)
Following this thread, it seems that there is strong argument for just removing them altogether from the game. If all the PTs during the war can't sink more than 2 or 3 ships, why clutter the map with them?

Twotribes -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 9:13:19 AM)
And I disagree, They serve an important function. They keep the Japanese player honest. The FACT remains the Japanese didnt will fully go in harms way where PT boats where unless absolutely required too. Unlike the computer game, where some people think since the allies have few carriers at start it is ok to park off a port at 2 hex range with carriers with no possible consequencs forth coming.

freeboy -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 12:01:23 PM)
Sorry guys, I think reality and desire are in conflict... Please answer me this... I am in a wooden non armored py boat traveling at 32knts. I am spotted by surface ships at 12k due to fog and rain, otherwise it would be farther out. I cannot launch my torps due to the extream range... I do what when 4" 5" and larger, or 20 mm 40mm or other shells start raining down on me? PLEASE answer this... the hypotheticals are a total waste of time, these wood boats die with the slightest damage... they really do, no floatation, and if the start to blead sea water watch out for the engine compartments//// So they are navigating into these enemy ships who are shelling them, and what else? The Japs are turning away and the speed difference in what 5-10 knots...???? Please do the math, it take a long time at 5 knots to travel 12k yards.... not get hit and aim yur boat at a ship to get a hit.....so PTs should =dead ALLIED sailors unless used historicaly as supply interdictors

Caltone -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 2:20:36 PM)
That's not true Freeboy, at least in WitP. Here PT's are only sighted at 3,000 yds or less. All engagements happen up close and in torpedo range. Yes there are a couple of things that need a look. The above and the ability to mass produce them.

Mike Scholl -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 2:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Caltone That's not true Freeboy, at least in WitP. Here PT's are only sighted at 3,000 yds or less. All engagements happen up close and in torpedo range. Which might make SOME sense at night..., but is totally rediculous during daytime engagements. Go out to the nearest large body of water some afternoon and see for yourself just how far away you can spot a cabin cruiser with a decent set of binoculars....

Belphegor -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/4/2004 7:14:32 PM)
Your tf should have float planes. Restrict the float planes to a range of 1 (good enough for protection, close enough not to go after anything else) and lower them to 100 ft. IF the PT boats come in, the float planes might get a shot at them. What else can they do when you are using other planes for recce. I realize that the thread has moved on, just doing the why not this thing...

freeboy -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/5/2004 10:45:12 PM)
Sighting at night in unrestriced waters is also in the 10 -12k range... escorted BB's would be ringed by DD's and would turn away from PT's subs while escorts would destroy them.. in rain fog or restriced water the 3000 yd figure I have no problem with.. Some of this comes from haveing such large hexes, where the land touches it, but only slightly.. OK, is this officially a dead horse?

Panzer76 -> RE: IT IS FRIGGIN BAD ENOUGH (9/6/2004 3:28:44 AM)
How about making the PTs immobile to simulate that they are a close combat defense. That way, PTs can only stay within 60 miles of an harbour. Not perfect at all, but with a game as complex as WitP, one should strive to make it LESS complex and not more. IMHO. Cheers, Panzer [image]local://upfiles/12738/Ec884757978.jpg[/image]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.171875