RE: I hate PTs (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Mac -> RE: I hate PTs (6/21/2006 11:04:53 PM)

PT Boats are not that much use except as a detterent the hit rate is poor and they are nothing more than a target if out of fuel.

A good screen will normally wipe the floor with them

On attack they run out of fuel and wont stay on station no matter what orders you give them unless you actually put them in the assault fleet which is a waste of a slot that a MSW or DD is better in. So on attack they are a last resort

On defence use them to guard harbours and bases thats what they are there for the main value there is the ops points that it wastes in the bombardment TF I rarely find them getting hits unless XP is in 80's and then only rarely. (PT Boats arent actually that much smaller than some of the old IJN DD's and PG's)

I have found them invaluable for protecting bases because the enemy has to deal with them before getting to transports or air base so less chance of a nuke bombardment.

I think the only time I concentrated that many in one place was the time I picked up PZB coming tin to Sag Sag and concentrated about 30 of them to intercept. (On thatcase I think I lost Quincy and a few DD's that were also there)

DD's Flotillas are a lot better for protecting harbours as they will do more damage but PT boats do have there uses especially on islands and atolls for limiting the damage caused by nuke bombardments.

Andy



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/21/2006 11:33:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Don't worry about the sync bug as it only effects the Allied players combat replay. Strafe the crap out of them but send a copy of your combat report. If he does not like it tell him to complain to the guy responsible for bugging the program.[:D]


honestly speaking neither me nor Raverdave did not notice any sign of sync bug in this game



veji1 -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 12:35:33 AM)

anyway the point is that 55 PTs is a lot... Is there a limited number of slots for them ?

If there isn't then it might be a good idea to create one, so that allies have to choose where to allocate them...



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:10:37 AM)

i doubt there is any limit
i need to get used to that




Ron Saueracker -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:15:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

i doubt there is any limit
i need to get used to that




Just another house rule instigator. Boy there are alot of house rules necessary to even contemplate playing this game.[;)] I am an apartment dweller...guess I'm screwed.[:'(]



pauk -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:26:52 AM)

the problem is Raverdave has nothing except PT boats to stop Sneer-san. Desperate situations requires desperate measures.

In the normal situation, where Allies have their fleet afloat i'm for the house rule, of course.



BrucePowers -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:37:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

i doubt there is any limit
i need to get used to that




Just another house rule instigator. Boy there are alot of house rules necessary to even contemplate playing this game.[;)] I am an apartment dweller...guess I'm screwed.[:'(]



Ron;
We really need to get you in a house.[:D] We don't want you to miss out.[:D]



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 9:58:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

the problem is Raverdave has nothing except PT boats to stop Sneer-san. Desperate situations requires desperate measures.

In the normal situation, where Allies have their fleet afloat i'm for the house rule, of course.


not exactly
there is almost whole cruiser force and DD should also be in good numbers



Raverdave -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:47:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

yeah but 55 of them for one port is a lot !!!

Shouldn't there be a limit in house rules, sort of like :
port 1-3 : 1 tf of 10
port 4-6 : 2 tfs of 10
Port 6-9 : 3 tfs of 10

?




I must admit o being somewhat intrigued by your comments on my use of PT boats and how it seems inappropriate that so many should be “stacked” in one hex.
To date I have had 561 allied ships sunk by Sneer which as you might imagine leaves me somewhat stretched in being able to cover all of my ports and points of interest I am forced to use what I have on hand.
The use of 55+ PT boats does not seem to me to be gamey in anyway……what if those 55 PT boats were PG’s or SG’s or even DD’s? Would having 55 DD’s in one hex be silly?
If you were in my current situation, having lost 561 ships what would you do?



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:49:59 PM)

number is not a gamey
only its flexibility/efficiency  is IMO higher than IRL




Andy Mac -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:50:11 PM)

I dont find it gamey at all as port defences massed PT boats are fine.

Were you to be sending out 50+ PT Boats on raids it might be a different story but on defence if you want to concentrate them that way its your choice I dont think you have enough to screen all the ports you have to protect but thats the risk you are running



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 1:59:15 PM)

not worth messing about
especially i would do same

as i wrote earlier numbers alone are not a problem to me even if it makes this base almost immune to any raid

04/23/43
DD Shiratsuyu did not reach port - again score for allied

3 allied AKs hit by bettys on north OZ coast - 2 heavt dmg

heavy night air attacks on east india - looks like there will be no daylight battle for a while



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 4:16:25 PM)

04/24/43
not planned raid over luganville
21 zeros lost
and 3 betty ]s for 2 corsairs
2 ak were hit - 1 heavily

reason was in faulty range given to my fighters
time to focus on 1-2 detailed operations instead of biting everything around perimeter



veji1 -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 4:52:09 PM)

My advice for what it is worth : You have achieved a great victory, now he needs time to recuperate, use that time to strengthen perimeter, If there is one last ambitious operation worth undertaking, why not, otherwise just rest, refit, and raid around, avoiding ports that are now all defended by corsairs, except if you are actually trying to take it....

As you said before, It is time you train the thousands of pilots you'll have to sacrifice in years to come...





Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:00:08 PM)

perimeter is done and thanks to raiding enemy was occupied when KB went R&R in Japan - now i'm ready for serious action
i'd gladly train those thousands of pilots but .... not in this game engine  - 100-200 is max I can do
soon i will move back to chungking - this time i expect to solve this issue and have CEA units free to use
it would be nice to pick 3-4 best chinase units with 99 exp and put them as additional force in marianes :-)
dreaming .....
back to work - there are so many allied ships to sunk - under this point - and not only- this game is great
ports looks to be safe corsairs in defensive mode are no match for me




spence -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:15:10 PM)

You'd hate PTs even more if you had to contend with my PT32 (in my First Year PBEM).  She has been in 5 engagements and sunk 2 DDs and an AP, and damaged 2 PC/PGs, and an AK. 



castor troy -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:18:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I dont find it gamey at all as port defences massed PT boats are fine.

Were you to be sending out 50+ PT Boats on raids it might be a different story but on defence if you want to concentrate them that way its your choice I dont think you have enough to screen all the ports you have to protect but thats the risk you are running



The question of gamyness of having 50 PT boats in a port hex is no question for me if I´m honestly. But what´s gamey to me (and that´s a problem of the game) is, that if you kill ALL those 50 PT boats in one turn, the next turn another 50 PT boats popped up! And that´s just a silly aspect of the game. And then I also say: "I hate PTs!"[8|]



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:19:16 PM)

this exactly what i was writing about
PT boats one day are floating targets and another they kill few good warships
and they are expendable so loosing 10 of them is nothing to allied player




Raverdave -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:36:47 PM)

21 zeros lost
and 3 bettys for 2 corsairs [8D]



Andy Mac -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 5:43:12 PM)

Hmmm perhaps the point value should be increased or the miraculous appear from an AK mechanism disabled thats a different point I guess (which I agree with)

Massing lots of them or there actual capability I don't have an issue with.

Personally I tend to deploy them as soon as there are 6 or 8 available as they are needed to stop IJN Bombardments so I dont tend to have the ability to generate large numbers on short notice typically I am watching the pool like a hawk waiting for the required number to deploy but I could understand the frustration if 1 day you destroy lots and the next day they "respawn"

Perhaps a better way is some kind of penalty on the day they appear if generated by to small a base or off an AK.

i.e. they appear with no torpedoes and no fuel unless generated at a base of port sized X

Andy



veji1 -> RE: I hate PTs (6/22/2006 6:08:06 PM)

maybe they should just appear at port 5+ and then be ferryed around ?



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 10:14:06 AM)

i'd like to see that during rain / thunderstorm they can't be undocked and they don't fight
if you want all weather naval protection - use bigger vessels



Raverdave -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 2:53:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

i'd like to see that during rain / thunderstorm they can't be undocked and they don't fight
if you want all weather naval protection - use bigger vessels



And I'd like better weather maps !



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 3:38:37 PM)

me too
sometimes i gamble about your search ability



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 5:25:11 PM)

4/27/43

JPN bleeds slowly in small vessels in southern dei
today for the 1st time my mine express as i call my mine laying division was caught in daylight at kai isl
they were as always refueled but somehow they lost enough ops to stay at kai isl at end of movement
3 medium ML sunk by planes
3-4 other vessels heavily damaged ( PG and ML)
as for good news sub managed to sunk enemy AK west of Broome ( returning convoy) - but it is only sub i have there
another AK - previously damaged sunk at Wyndham in last few days too
big part of my sub force is unfortunately in repair shipyard as all subs with dmg over 20 is directed to rear ports





Raverdave -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 6:03:17 PM)

The tone of the war is sublty changing.  There is a feeling in air, my troops seem to be walking a little taller, and the work on ships is done faster and with more purpose. Soldiers train and no longer bitch and whine.  There is a feeling in the air, and that feeling is victory !



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/23/2006 8:54:46 PM)

yes
43 is a balance year
but do not get oveerconfident too much
you just noticed Japan bleeds as other countries...
my high activity brought some light losses but it is not surprise
MSW ,PC ,ML subs are high duty ships
no important capital was hurt so no worry

i'm pleased with military effort of my economy
5th carrier division will be created within next 2 months - akagi will be back - usual KB composition will change
within 3 months damaged BBs should be back too
ground forces will receive 11 inf div within next 60 days and soon hikotais will be created for my air forces
i'm ready for allies which are expected to move sooner than it was expected




Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/24/2006 12:16:50 PM)

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR 04/29/43

Day Time Surface Combat at 9,87

Japanese Ships
CA Kinugasa
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Agano
DD Urakaze
DD Shirayuki

Allied Ships
AS Pelias, Shell hits 26, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk



Raverdave -> RE: I hate PTs (6/24/2006 12:41:53 PM)

That was a nice move !



Sneer -> RE: I hate PTs (6/24/2006 1:12:49 PM)

but i missed returning convoy :-)
4/30/43
2 heavily damaged Mls and 1 PG sunk at Amboina harbour
DM Pruitt heavily hit by mine at luganville
damaged SS Herring sunk before reaching safety



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75