Torpedos usage

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Torpedos usage

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 7:30:44 AM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

after reading Shattered Sword, i was amazed to learn that the Akagi only carried 36 torpedos. Then i recalled discussion on the WITP forum about the over abundance of torpedos in this game, especailly for the Japanese side. So this got me thinking of how such precious, limited, sophisticated weapons could be modded in the game without code changes.

For the allies, i seem to recall that Nik came up for a solution for the over abudance of Beauforts using torpedos, by basically making the "Beufort I" the torpedo carrying version with limited production numbers, and making the more abdundant "Beufort XIV" a bomber only. Problem solved

Warships and Subs are already well modded in regards to torpedo reloading as they require support ships or level 9 ports..so there is no problem there

Carrier borne torpedo aircraft seem to have no restriction other than the max sortie rate to limi their torpedo usage, so it looks like we are stuck with that situation.

Now in regards to the Bettys/Nells, i would gather that there is probably alot of anger out there due to the seemily unendless supply of torpedos these planes can deliver. Unfortunately since the japanese have control over there production, you can just do a quick fix ,a la Nik, and make 2 versions of Bettys...one a torpedo version and one a bomber versions, as players will just opt to maximize production the torpedo version. However, what if you were to make a mod that included 2 versions of Bettys (1 torpedo, 1 bomber) but make it so that the bomber Bettys would be less expensive for the japanese to produce. For instance, maybe assign 4 or 6 engines for the production of 1 torpedo Betty, and the normal 2 engines for the production of 1 bomber betty. for those people out there familar with japanese production would this be a fair deal? or am i just in fantasy land?

Post #: 1

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 11:30:08 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

The best way to fix this is to make torpedoes a produceable item or install a toggle to allow choosing which loadout is desired.

The problem with making two variants of the Betty is that the Japanese player can choose to build just one version. If he chooses the torpedo version, you're right back to the original problem. The other problem is that it would also remove many Betty units from a ground attack role.

And what do you do about the Nells? and Kates and later torp aircraft?

The best fix is the hardest but its also the most sensible.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 2

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 11:31:54 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

after reading Shattered Sword, i was amazed to learn that the Akagi only carried 36 torpedos. Then i recalled discussion on the WITP forum about the over abundance of torpedos in this game, especailly for the Japanese side. So this got me thinking of how such precious, limited, sophisticated weapons could be modded in the game without code changes.

For the allies, i seem to recall that Nik came up for a solution for the over abudance of Beauforts using torpedos, by basically making the "Beufort I" the torpedo carrying version with limited production numbers, and making the more abdundant "Beufort XIV" a bomber only. Problem solved

Warships and Subs are already well modded in regards to torpedo reloading as they require support ships or level 9 ports..so there is no problem there

Carrier borne torpedo aircraft seem to have no restriction other than the max sortie rate to limi their torpedo usage, so it looks like we are stuck with that situation.

Now in regards to the Bettys/Nells, i would gather that there is probably alot of anger out there due to the seemily unendless supply of torpedos these planes can deliver. Unfortunately since the japanese have control over there production, you can just do a quick fix ,a la Nik, and make 2 versions of Bettys...one a torpedo version and one a bomber versions, as players will just opt to maximize production the torpedo version. However, what if you were to make a mod that included 2 versions of Bettys (1 torpedo, 1 bomber) but make it so that the bomber Bettys would be less expensive for the japanese to produce. For instance, maybe assign 4 or 6 engines for the production of 1 torpedo Betty, and the normal 2 engines for the production of 1 bomber betty. for those people out there familar with japanese production would this be a fair deal? or am i just in fantasy land?

You�re correct, there are far too many torps available. If PBEM, make up a house rule if wanted. Level 5 or 6 for Betties and Nells. But to be honest, as long as an Allied opponent uses B17, B24 and perhaps even B29 out of level 4 fields..... If B17 and B24 do naval attacks I wouldn�t agree on such a house rule. You can just come up with the old Allied fanboy statement: the B17 and B24 wasn�t often used for naval attack (and never achieved the 30-50% hit rate that�s in the game) but those planes were able to do naval attacks. So the Betties and Nells were used for naval attack (and never achieved the hit rate that�s in the game) but those planes were able to carry torpedoes.

It�s a never ending story I think. The more I think about the decisions made by the developers the more I agree with them.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/28/2006 11:32:52 AM >

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 3

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 1:59:53 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

The B17 was intended for use in defense against naval forces. The fact that it had such an abysmal anti-shipping hit probability from altitude (about 3%) affected how it was actually used.

The G3M and G4M were good for about 20-25% hit probability with torpedoes early in the war.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 2:26:30 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

In my heavily modded CHS 2.07 scenerio I am attempting to lessen the effects of these super torpedo carrying aircraft by setting the dud rate at 50% for Beauforts and Betties/Nells. I have always found them to be far to effective and need to be toned down considerably. However, due to the changes being made in the base CHS I have not been able to get far enuf into any one game to get a feel for the effects of this before I have to do a restart due to the non-ability to edit a game in progress.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 5

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 2:48:24 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

In my heavily modded CHS 2.07 scenerio I am attempting to lessen the effects of these super torpedo carrying aircraft by setting the dud rate at 50% for Beauforts and Betties/Nells. I have always found them to be far to effective and need to be toned down considerably. However, due to the changes being made in the base CHS I have not been able to get far enuf into any one game to get a feel for the effects of this before I have to do a restart due to the non-ability to edit a game in progress.

You could also increase the aircraft load value, which in turn would limit the number of airfield from which TB's could lauch torp attacks.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 6

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 4:04:26 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
You could also increase the aircraft load value, which in turn would limit the number of airfield from which TB's could lauch torp attacks.

That would be terrible solution IMHO. IJN 2E aircraft already need level 4 airbase to launch torpedo attacks which, given the abysmal Japanese engineering capabilities, is restricting enough.

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

Modding trops to have high dud rates seems like usable "hack" to solve part of the problem. But as Castor said this problem is inseparable from the problem of Allied players using massive, unhistorically big, unhistorically precise naval 4E strikes with mammoth unhistoric bombloads. Since you can't control either problem without house rules, it seems we're stuck with what we have.

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 7

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 4:14:23 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

If they're "unendless" that would actually mean there is a limited number.

endless = infinate number
unending = infinate number

unendless = not an infinate number

Yes, I married an English teacher.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 8

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 4:24:24 PM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

If they're "unendless" that would actually mean there is a limited number.

endless = infinate number
unending = infinate number

unendless = not an infinate number

Yes, I married an English teacher.

-F-

Then you'll probably get an infinite number of "I must improve my spelling" lines to copy.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 9

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 4:29:33 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

"Feinder can not spell." Or is it, "Feinder cannot spell."

.
.
.

Bodhi!

You're back!(?)
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 10

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 4:43:19 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

But as Castor said this problem is inseparable from the problem of Allied players using massive, unhistorically big, unhistorically precise naval 4E strikes with mammoth unhistoric bombloads. Since you can't control either problem without house rules, it seems we're stuck with what we have.

the allied 4E problem (which there is one) seems to be easily solved with a number of common house rules is see on the forum such as
- no 4E naval attacks...just 2E bombers
- no 4E naval attacks below 15000 feet
- no upgrading 2E airframes to 4E
- reduction in production numbers in allied 4E (nik mod and CHS)
- no 4E operating out of level 4 airfields
- Stacking limits at base's

however unlike the Allies the Betty torpedo problem seems to have no clear house rule, so the allies just get hosed when 4E house rules are imposed on them and nothing is done about the Betty.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 11

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 6:22:55 PM

Desertmole

Posts: 144
Joined: 10/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

It was pretty much true of all carriers of the time, US included. The problem is that torpedoes, unlike bombs, needed constant maintenance to keep them in operational order, so in addition to a magazine, there were torpedo workshops for maintenance. Add to that, torpedo magazines took a lot more room than bomb magazines.

One of the reasons that Ranger was not deployed to the Pacific was that she was designed without torpedo facilities. She was designed to carry only fighting and scouting squadrons. Her small size and and other limited capabilities were the other reasons.

A good reference on this is Freedman's US Carriers Design.

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 12

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 8:46:40 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

"Feinder can not spell." Or is it, "Feinder cannot spell."

It's "Feinder can't spell."

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 13

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 8:51:27 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

Don't forget that the Akagi and Kaga were converted to carriers during the 1920s when torpedo carrying aircraft hadn't yet been developed to any degree. Also, the early carriers of most nations were designed for scouting roles, not for their offensive capabilities.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 14

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 9:06:30 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

however unlike the Allies the Betty torpedo problem seems to have no clear house rule, so the allies just get hosed when 4E house rules are imposed on them and nothing is done about the Betty.

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

The Japanese and allied players have NO CONTROL over what loadout planes use except where dictated by extended range. The overabundance of torpedoes applies to every torpedo carrying aircraft including Swordfish, Beauforts, Kates, Avengers, Devastators, Jills, and Nells, not just Bettys.

Most of us agree that torpedoes are too abundant but until the game design is changed to limit them, there just isn't anything that can be done realistically because it applies to every torpedo carrying plane of every nation.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 15

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 10:43:12 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

The G3M and G4M were good for about 20-25% hit probability with torpedoes early in the war

Very early - like the very first attack they made against Repulse and PoW. And those were groups that had been specifically selected and trained to attack those ships (in a previous thread though one of the more ardent IJN torpedo advocates (Brady?) mentioned that the IJN had to fly in (some of) the actual torpedoes for the attack on the day it took place? Now there's a rather amazing bit of lack of logistical foresight).

After that first attack the Betty/Nell combos never achieved anything approaching the stated rate.

Other than the original 6 KB carriers did any of the other IJN carriers even launch a torpedo attack at all prior to Santa Cruz (Junyo did then I think). I know that Ryujo never launched a torpedo attack in its entire career. Same with Hosho and the CVEs. Shoho never got a chance. Zuiho might have launched some TBs at Philippine Sea but pretty sure she didn't before that.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 16

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 11:11:45 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

While I would like to see fewer torps in game, you'd have to significantly up the lethality of bombs if you reduced the number of torps. Bombs are greatly under-represented in their ability to sink something, simply because they don't usually do much float damage. Fire and Sys, sure. But a ship can putter across the Pacific with 99 sys damage. For a capital ship especially, you are amost required to hit it with a torp or two.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 17

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/28/2006 11:18:37 PM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

How about no naval strike missions for that type airframe except from level 6 AF or a base where a "designated Naval Base Force" non-fragment is operating; where the IJN has say 2 of these base units. Cuts down on the "Kuching-Jolo-Kendari-Amboina" line of death in the early war and stresses the importance of major bases/special circumstances for these types of units.

Same can be said for 4E stuff; only naval/af/port attacks from lvl 6 or where there is a command or AF HQ of the same "assignment". Pay the cost in PP to switch to ABDA if you want your 7th BG there, otherwise send it on to SEAC where it's assigned.

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 18

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 1:00:15 AM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

The Japanese and allied players have NO CONTROL over what loadout planes use except where dictated by extended range. The overabundance of torpedoes applies to every torpedo carrying aircraft including Swordfish, Beauforts, Kates, Avengers, Devastators, Jills, and Nells, not just Bettys.

as i stated before in my 1st post, theres nothing that can be done about the TB planes (Kates, Swordfish, TBF, etc). But these planes usually get slaughtered by AA and CAP, and plus there is a max sortie rule for those planes located on CVs, so i don't think theres as much of a problem dealing with these planes.

That leaves us with Beauforts/Betties/Nells. Now as i stated before the Beurforts can easily be limited in there torpedo carrying role by separating the 2 Beaufort models into a torpedo carrying model and bomber model, with the former in less production. This has already been done in Niks mod. In dealing with the Betty/Nell torpedo problem, i really couldn't think of any house rule to limited there use (like Tabpud did) therefore i came up with a similar "2 model approach" like the Beauforts. However then i realized players would probably only produced the torpedo carrying model. Therefore i figured if you made the torpedo carrying model expensive to make (as torpedos were) by requiring lets say 6 engines to produce a torpedo carrying betty/nell, then players may not be able to produce as many of that model. Which may produce a more historical usage of torpedos

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 19

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 1:39:11 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

It was pretty much true of all carriers of the time, US included.�

True, but USN relied on torpedo bombers much less than IJN. IJN CV torpedo-loads were enough for less than TWO full torpedo strikes against enemy with early war large torpedo daitais (assuming all B5Ns survived the first strike which is unlikely). Val's 250 kg bomb is a joke vs BB. It's yet another case of "what the **** were they thinking?".

quote:

Don't forget that the Akagi and Kaga were converted to carriers during the 1920s when torpedo carrying aircraft hadn't yet been developed to any degree.

Modern IJN carriers were no better. Kojinsha gives number of only 45 Type 91 torpedos in Shokaku class storage! (Plus 60x800kg bombs, 60x500kg bombs - we don't see those in the game - 312x250kg bombs, 528x60kg bombs, and 48x30kg bombs) These numbers seem very precise and definitive.

Unryu class - 36 torpedos.

Taiho - 45.

For a navy where everything revolved around superior torpedo skillz and technology both on surface and in the air (unlike USN) that's just laughable.

So yes, knowing all this in game terms I do feel kinda bad when my IJN CVs launch their billionth torpedo strike in the course of 3-4 days on open sea, but I rationalize it, plus, any bad feeling I might have had goes away as soon as my USN PBEM opponent sends his 300 B17s on naval strike or equally unrealistic airfield Oscar/Nate massacre mission

I accept the game as it is, and no mod I've seen deals with these issues in satisfying manner (for me).

I think:
- Bombs (800kg and 500kg) should be used more often (by Kates), be more precise if dropped by skilled CV trained dudes, and produce *lot* more damage (one shot kill with 800kg monster should not be so rare especially on smaller ships)

- Torpedos, if used realistically rarely, should also be one hit - one kill weapons on anything smaller than CA (in most cases). Having AKs absorb 3-4 aerial or submarine torpedos before dying is just insane (it helps mitigate torpedo abundance somewhat, though)

- Huge restrictions should be placed on Allied 4E bombers in many cases, but I doubt we'll ever see this...

Having said this, I can live with the game such as it is, adapt, rationalize and overcome

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to Desertmole)

Post #: 20

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 1:58:17 AM

shoevarek

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Torpedos, if used realistically rarely, should also be one hit - one kill weapons on anything smaller than CA (in most cases). Having AKs absorb 3-4 aerial or submarine torpedos before dying is just insane (it helps mitigate torpedo abundance somewhat, though)

This is very true. There is also another piece that noone mentioned. The AI is not smart enough to make correct arming decission. Limiting number of torpedoes alone would make game unplayable. How many times AI would expend entire stock of torps against some unsignificant target?!

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 21

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 3:00:09 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

How about no naval strike missions for that type airframe except from level 6 AF or a base where a "designated Naval Base Force" non-fragment is operating; where the IJN has say 2 of these base units. Cuts down on the "Kuching-Jolo-Kendari-Amboina" line of death in the early war and stresses the importance of major bases/special circumstances for these types of units.

Well, that would pretty much knock out any use of Bettys and Nells whatsoever if they are restricted to level 6 airfields as the only ones under Japanese control at the start outside of the Home Islands is Takao. That means no historical torpedo attacks from Saigon against the POW and Repulse and no reason to keep Bettys and Nells anywhere outside of the Home Isalnds or Takao.

As far as "a base where a designated Naval Base Force non-fragment is operating", I don't think that will work as the number of Naval Base Forces are few and far between and have only 30 AV support points. If someone were to propose that as a houserule, I would respond with the requirement that all army 2E and 4E be supported by only army base forces.

People complain that Betty and Nell torpedo attacks are too frequent, that there are too many torpedos available and I would agree. There are also too many 4E bombers available along with the unlimited numbers of bombs to drop.

Allied players look on the Betty as a dangerous weapon and they should but they have to realize it is not without great cost. The extended range is 20 and the normal range is 15. The Betty can use torps at normal range but the problem is that there are very few areas on the map that the Betty can fly at those ranges without encountering LR CAP. They will be slaughtered if they fly opposed missions unescorted. The maximum escort range of the Zero is 11 hexes. Any one who sets Betty or Nell range greater than 11 will sooner or later pay the price. At least for me, Betty range is limited to what I can excort them at so call it a range of 11 hexes. That's only 1 hex more than the B-17 can fly with a normal loadout. And given that the B-17 hit rate against shipping exceeds a Betty's torpedo hit rate, which is the more dangerous opponent?

Personally, the best way to avoid Bettys and their torpedos is to avoid there operating areas or provide good CAP defenses. The Bettys can't survive without escort.

Just my thoughts.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 22

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 7:16:08 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Chez, the problem with your last comment is that the allies will never be able to instigate a surprise naval bombardment against any base with Betties, as their normal range means that they will get in torpedo attacks on a bombardment TF long before it reaches that base. Compare this to the allies: their B17s and B24s can attack those bombardment TFs, but will do little to no damage to those TFs. We all know that the answer to the tactic of massing bombers at a strongpoint is to use naval bombardment, but in effect this tactic is usable only by the Japanese players.

You say that the B17 is more dangerous than the Betty to enemy shipping. I'm wondering if you failed a pee test... even the occaisional 1000lb bomb is less dangerous to a capital ship than a torpedo and the 500lber is a laugher if you're talking capital ships.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 23

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 8:01:22 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Chez also seriously overstates the hit percentages that the 4E bombers get. Even against fixed positions like airfields and ports testing long ago showed that only something like 1% to 4% of the bombs dropped did any damage. And that is a situation where at least the program theoritically allows more than one bomb per plane to hit. Combined with the game's understating bomb power and overstating IJN ships' armor....

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 24

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 9:12:17 AM

Drongo

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan
In dealing with the Betty/Nell torpedo problem, i really couldn't think of any house rule to limited there use (like Tabpud did) therefore i came up with a similar "2 model approach" like the Beauforts. However then i realized players would probably only produced the torpedo carrying model. Therefore i figured if you made the torpedo carrying model expensive to make (as torpedos were) by requiring lets say 6 engines to produce a torpedo carrying betty/nell, then players may not be able to produce as many of that model. Which may produce a more historical usage of torpedos

It wouldn't surprise me if 4E bombers are treated differently to 2E bombers by the code in ways other than just being more expensive to produce (IIRC, it may be that a 4E aircraft is considered a bigger target than a 2E aircraft when shot at by fighters or AA).

It'd be worth doing a solid test to check for things like the above before implementing such a solution.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 25

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 12:08:11 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

Bradfordkay and dtravel:

I have been on the receiving end of many allied 4e attacks against my ships and each and every time my ships have had to spend long periods of time in port repairing. Its true that the capital ships normally don't get much flot damage but their topsides are swiss cheese. I've had ships where every single AA gun was destroyed plus uncontrolled fires will certainly put any ship at 99 sys damage quite rapidly. And 4Es do sink escorts quite well.

I'd rather face a couple Daitais of Bettys than a couple of BGs of 4Es.

dtravel: Let's assume that the 4Es get a 4% hit rate for each bomb dropped. B-17s carry 12-500lb bombs. If 2 BGs of 48 aircraft each attack (total 96 bombers), that's 1152 bombs dropped. At a 4% hit rate, thats 46 hits. In effective that is a 46.9% hit rate per aircraft.

For the B-24 its even worse because they carry 16 bombs. So 96 B-24s carry 1536 bombs. 4% hit rate = 61 hits or a 63.5% hit rate per aircraft. The Bettys have nowhere near that kind of accuracy. While its true you are going to get flot hits with torps, a ship without a topside isn't much good to anyone. And fire damage can sink a ship, especially a soft skinned one. Anything less than a CA is going to get pulverized and sunk. After a few bombardment attempts the Japanese capital ships will all be in the yards and the CLs and DDs are aritificial reefs. And we all know how slow capital ships repair. Heaven forbid that the 4Es catch a carrier.

And this isn't even considering 1000lb bombs.

Let me ask you both this. Assume that both players have bases in and around the NG and the Solomons that need to be supplied. Both sides are faced with running a gauntlet of enemy LBA to resupply their bases. Each side can call on any ship type and has plenty of fighter assets.

Would you rather be the Japanese player with 100 Bettys at Rabaul or the allied player with 100 B-24s at PM?

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 26

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 12:48:41 PM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

How about no naval strike missions for that type airframe except from level 6 AF or a base where a "designated Naval Base Force" non-fragment is operating; where the IJN has say 2 of these base units. Cuts down on the "Kuching-Jolo-Kendari-Amboina" line of death in the early war and stresses the importance of major bases/special circumstances for these types of units.

quote:

Well, that would pretty much knock out any use of Bettys and Nells whatsoever if they are restricted to level 6 airfields as the only ones under Japanese control at the start outside of the Home Islands is Takao. That means no historical torpedo attacks from Saigon against the POW and Repulse and no reason to keep Bettys and Nells anywhere outside of the Home Isalnds or Takao.

As far as "a base where a designated Naval Base Force non-fragment is operating", I don't think that will work as the number of Naval Base Forces are few and far between and have only 30 AV support points. If someone were to propose that as a houserule, I would respond with the requirement that all army 2E and 4E be supported by only army base forces.

Ok, Saigon is an exception as she is a 5 with a SPS of 6; I thought that it started at 6. So allow GM bombers naval attack out of there for the initial war and that it be built up to 6 by Jan/Feb or naval attacks by GM types have to cease (would simulate the using up of the finite resource of torpedos).

As to the 2nd para, I think that I was not clear. Let me restate: the presence of one of these designated Naval Base forces allows that base to have GM types on naval attack; the other aviation support can be provided from normal base units. We are not limiting the amount of GM bombers to the aviation support of the special base unit, just having one of those units at a base lets it fly GM types on naval attack. So, early war, if you want Betties wave hopping with torpedos out of Kendari in February, move a designated NBF there before enabling the naval attack on them. Later on, there are many bases that can be built up to 6, providing many nodes for level bomber torpedo bases. The Marshalls are one of the areas that there are few bases if any of that type, indicating the need to raise Tarawa to that level and/or base a designated NBF there for that type of mission.

And for the record in the 2nd para of the post, I did mention docking the 4e's with a similar rule, 6 size or a command/AF HQ of the same theater assignment as the BG. And that would be for any mission other than search. If you want B17s out of Surabaya in March as Allied, pay the PP to call them ABDA and have the ABDA HQ there to run the show. If not, don't run anything other than search. And then if you want to move them to India, pay the PP to call them SEAC and have either SEAC or an Army Hq or wait for 10th AF to show up and run them.

Both are kinda boring, but illustrate some of the early war problems that heavy bombers had, that of getting the right supplies and equipment to the right places either before or just as the bombers arrive to do operations. But both require the players to perform the actions, not the program; ergo, it will only happen between consenting adults.......hehe...

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 27

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 2:29:16 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

We are discussing many issues of the game. No matter if too blody air combat, broken ground combat, too much supply, too much torpedoes, ASW good or bad, too many 4E bombers, PDU on or off,..... and many other things I�ve surely not mentioned. And I can say it�s good to discuss those things. But a thing that always comes to my mind during such discussions is the problem that if we really would face accurate historical facts nobody would like to play this game.

Imagine having only a couple of BB bombardments in 4 years of war. Only let�s say 20 times in 4 years of naval attacks of bombers armed with torpedoes. Only twice a month an attack on an airfield with around 30 4E bombers. And this goes on and on....

The more we discuss what would be possible in 41-45 the more I have to say that the game would become more and more boring. I agree with most of the things discussed on the forum and that there should be made some changes and the different mods are doing a good job

but still some changes should be done to the code. Many things are seen too often and are too blody, but if you see them only once or twice in a year of game time (which often is a year in RL also) then it would be really boring for me.

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 28

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 3:17:11 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

This was covered many times and once quite extensively in thread I started

about how to limit torpedo usage from land bases...

I only wish the damn forum search engine allows me to find that older thread

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 29

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 3:51:46 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

I had to list every post I made and then manually search...

Here is poll and thread that "Mogami" created out of my original thread:

"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1122354&mpage=1

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 30