RE: 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

RE: 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 >> RE: Torpedos usage

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 3:54:57 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

here is the original thread I started and from which "Mogami" created a poll (see above):

"Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks..."

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1116695&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 #: 31

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 5:17:58 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

I had to list every post I made

Huh? How do you do that?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 32

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 6:14:15 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

I had to list every post I made

Huh? How do you do that?

Not all... that's, unfortunately, not posible... just 300 at the time (i.e. MAX)... the "all" is in regard of option in search engine...

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 tsimmonds)

Post #: 33

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 6:30:00 PM

bradfordkay

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

Chez, If I had to choose between using 100 Betties or 100 B24s for the scenario you are providing, it would be the Betties, hands down. They use up fewer supplies, can be launched from smaller bases, and are more effective against shipping. Their only weakness is the higher loss rate - but it costs fewer supplies to replace them, I believe (could be wrong on that last one). They can also prevent a naval bombardment of their home base.

As mentioned before, 4E bombers are heavily restricted with house rules such as "no naval attacks" or "naval attacks no lower than 15000 feet". Personally, even though I only play against the AI, I will not drop my 4E bombers below 11000 feet - and I have not been getting much in the way of hits on shipping with them since I have done this.

Why is it so wrong to discuss house rules for Betties/Nells/Beauforts ?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 34

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 8:51:04 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

Why is it so wrong to discuss house rules for Betties/Nells/Beauforts ?

Its not wrong. I think you misread me. I just don't think that there is a workable house rule to be found for torpedo aircraft that doesn't require tons of micromanagement. As the player has no ability to control loadouts, I don't think any house rule would prevent torpedo attacks.

I prefer changing the game system to incorporate torpedo production. I think this is the best way to handle the problem. However, I also recognize that it is unlikely to happen wiothout a major rewrite of the game.

If someone came up with a way to manage torpedo aircraft without crippling them or increasing their production costs, then I would probably support it. Currently, the only house rule I would support is limiting their range to 11 (A6M range)when conducting torpedo attacks. This is easily done and doesn't require micromanagement.

The only house rule regarding 4Es we have in my game with AndyMac is that attacks can not be conducted by more than 2 BGs against any one target at a time. He can use them on antishipping roles (and does...ouch), airfield suppression (ouch), abd city attack (ouch). He can have as many BGs as they base can handle, he just can't mass them into an attack against one target.

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 bradfordkay)

Post #: 35

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 9:39:53 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

Chez, If I had to choose between using 100 Betties or 100 B24s for the scenario you are providing, it would be the Betties, hands down. They use up fewer supplies, can be launched from smaller bases, and are more effective against shipping. Their only weakness is the higher loss rate - but it costs fewer supplies to replace them, I believe (could be wrong on that last one). They can also prevent a naval bombardment of their home base.

And I would choose the B-24 because that at the end of the month, the Japanese ships will all be in repair yards (or on their way), that every Japanese airfield within range will be heavily damaged, that the Japanese fighter force would be crewed by 40-something experience pilots and probably very short of pool aircraft.

You say you woiuld choose the Betty because it can be launched from a smaller airfield (lvl 4 vs lvl 5). So can the B-24, just with a reduced bomb load. Try a Betty from a level 3 aircrfield and see what you get. Not only no torps, but a reduced bombload to boot. The B-24 will even launch froma level 3 airfield at reduced numbers and load but it still launches.

The loss rate for the Betty will be horrendous, something on the order of 20%+ per mission even if the target is a naval force without fighter cover. At the end of 5-6 missions, you won't have enough left to do the job. I have yet to see a 4E shotdown by ships.

Yes, the allied player would suffer ship losses but they are replaceable (or respawn). Japanese losses aren't. And a japanese BB spending a year in a yard to repair is a BB that might as well be on the bottom of the ocean. By the time it comes out of port, the war situation will have changed drastically and its offensive capability has been neutered by allied air superiority, just as IRL. Not to mention the huge drain on supply and HI the repair requires.

Yes, it does cost fewer supply to replace a Betty but supply isn't an issue for the allied player, only its location. Supply is a major factor.

In the scenario I mentioned. The B-24 will sweep the seas of Japanese supply transports heading for Rabaul. The Bettys will be crumpled pieces of metal sitting on the bottom of the ocean due to allied LR CAP and lack of escort. That's assuming they can takeoff on a mission after an allied heavy bomb mission.

I have one game with LordMaul in which we have no restrictions on allied 4Es. I haven't seen an allied combatant that isn't a part of an invasion force in months (Feb 43) because he dosen't need to use them. He simply paves the way for invasion with 500+ heavies that destroy everything in their path. I'v emanaged to shoot down nearly 300 of them but he has a seemingly endless supply. This is why I insist on a restriction no more than 2 BGs of allied 4Es attacking any one target.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't want to see the one effective Japanese offensive weapon neutered to the point that it becomes useless. The allied player has many options to reduce the Betty effectiveness. The Japanese player has very few in comparison. Even a successful Japanese bombardment will have only a temporary effect on the 4Es. The allied player will have replaced any losses and repaired the airfield well before the severely damaged Japanese ships make it back to port, let alone to a repair yard.

One last point in regard to allied bombers interdicting Japanese bombardments. It doesn't take many hits to cause enough sys dam to drop the Japanese ships speed to the point that it can no longer scoot and shoot and avoid SBDs and Avengers. Just a few allied PTs at the base will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the bombardment and they may even torp a capital ship. And from what I've seen, allied PTs are nearly invincible to Japanese airpower. I've learned (and relearned) that point.

Anyways, like I said, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I want a workable solution that is satisfactory to both sides.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 36

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 10:01:57 PM

spence

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

From post #1 we hear that Akagi carried only 36 torpedoes in her magazines.

If I recall correctly the max sorties for Akagi is over 400 and CAP doesn't count. That's around 9-10 strike missions per attack type a/c without replenishment. A theoretical 180-200 or so torpedoes. Seems a really really "a bit" over the top.

Does anyone have the magazine loadout figures for any other carriers of either side? Searching around on the web I've not been able to find any.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 37

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/29/2006 10:05:57 PM

spence

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

Come to think of it 9-10 strike sorties per attack a/c with any kind of ordinance (w/o replenishment) seems a bit over the top.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 38

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 12:07:47 AM

Daniel Oskar

Posts: 123
Joined: 12/15/2000
Status: offline

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 39

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 6:06:51 AM

bradfordkay

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

"He simply paves the way for invasion with 500+ heavies that destroy everything in their path. I'v emanaged to shoot down nearly 300 of them but he has a seemingly endless supply."

Chez, are you guys playing the stock game? I have never seen that many 4E bombers in my air forces, though the only game I ever got into mid '43 was the first CHS issue. I do prefer the scenarios which place a more realistic replacement rate for aircraft as this prevents a lot of this nonsense.

I think that I will play a house rule that limits multi-engined torpedo carrying aircraft to level 5 airfields if they are to launch Naval Strikes. This will require the Japanese player to build up Kuching and Jolo before they can launch these attacks - simulating the effort to bring the torpedoes and associated equipment into play. I realize that it isn't a perfect solution - there is none without a change to the game code, which is not something I expect to happen. It just irks me to see my retreating task forces getting nailed by torpedo carrying Betties/Nells the day after Kuching falls (as an example).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Daniel Oskar)

Post #: 40

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 6:12:34 AM

bradfordkay

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

"One last point in regard to allied bombers interdicting Japanese bombardments. It doesn't take many hits to cause enough sys dam to drop the Japanese ships speed to the point that it can no longer scoot and shoot and avoid SBDs and Avengers. Just a few allied PTs at the base will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the bombardment and they may even torp a capital ship. And from what I've seen, allied PTs are nearly invincible to Japanese airpower. I've learned (and relearned) that point."

Hmm... I've had allied PTS torpedoed by enemy aircraft. Otherwise they have been just about my only effective defense. The aircraft don't often come into play (especially the SBDs and TBFs) as the Japanese bombardment TFs come in, blast the field to the point that the a/c can't launch and then escape. Without some surface TF in the location, these attacks are not going to fail. Of course, if I send the long range 4E bombers in a lower elevations in order to score any hits on the incoming TF I'm being gamey...(I realize that this is not necessarily your attitude, just the general consensus here).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 41

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 10:42:49 AM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

Chez, are you guys playing the stock game? I have never seen that many 4E bombers in my air forces, though the only game I ever got into mid '43 was the first CHS issue. I do prefer the scenarios which place a more realistic replacement rate for aircraft as this prevents a lot of this nonsense.

Yes, its a stock scenario 15 upgarded to 1.801 with PDU.

Becuase we didn't house rule it, he upgraded every B-25/B-26 squadron to 4Es. I have seen raids in excess of 500 bombers from level 5 fields and raids over 400 bombers from level 4. Even level 3 airfields put up sizeable raids that are virtually impossible to stop.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 42

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 4:03:06 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Does anyone have the magazine loadout figures for any other carriers of either side? Searching around on the web I've not been able to find any.

I posted some numbers for IJN CVs on page one of this thread. In short it's between 36-45 torpedos even for modern CVs like Shokaku.

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 43

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 4:11:00 PM

castor troy

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

When having e.g. a production rate for torps people should think about how air combat goes in the game. Imagine getting a raid of 100 Zekes and 100 Betties at a target that is covered by 30 Corsairs...

100 Zekes and 100 Betties shot down (of course also two or three Corsairs shot down) and all available torps for one month also gone...

If one thing is changed then 10 other things must be changed too.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 44

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 4:13:03 PM

spence

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

quote:

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned.� Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number.� #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

< Message edited by spence -- 7/30/2006 4:14:07 PM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 45

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/30/2006 5:06:32 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
When having e.g. a production rate for torps people should think about how air combat goes in the game. Imagine getting a raid of 100 Zekes and 100 Betties at a target that is covered by 30 Corsairs...

100 Zekes and 100 Betties shot down (of course also two or three Corsairs shot down) and all available torps for one month also gone...

What are you smoking? You're overestimating Corsair losses by at least 200-300%

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 46

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 1:17:40 AM

spence

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

The max sorties number for different carriers must be hard coded because I couldn't any place to edit it (maybe I didn't look hard enough though).

Out of curiousity I just looked at Enterprise (1941 version) and found it had a max sortie number of 534 (roughly 10 sorties per attack type a/c).� How do you suppose that reconciles with the magazine loadout given below?

quote:

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36��

(over 40 sorties by attack a/c with a 500lb GP or better [excludes using DCs, incindiaries, or antipersonnel bombs])

< Message edited by spence -- 7/31/2006 1:20:11 AM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 47

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 3:32:57 AM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The max sorties number for different carriers must be hard coded because I couldn't any place to edit it (maybe I didn't look hard enough though).

Look in wpn-slot 20, every carrier has "aircraft ordnance" in this slot.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 48

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 1:19:08 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I went a different direction for RHS. Instead of limiting torpedo usage, I added many torpedo capable ships and planes. If you like torpedo destroyers - play RHSBBO - you get many of the 16 planned. I gave the Allies two important medium bombers with torpedo capability (Ventura and B-26) - in their early marks. I gave Japan even more bombers able to deliver torpedoes - notably a heavy one (G8N1) - and I assigned the Ki-61 to the historical NAVY group which operated it - as well as to the historical "torpedo sentai" of JAAF missing from other WITP mods. You don't like torpedoes ? Do do RHS.

It is quite true that torpedoes are a production bottleneck. More so historically than should be in the game. Japan lost 300 torpedoes by being stupid (putting them on two raiders lost in the Indian Ocean). If players really could manage production and deployment, trust me on this: torpedoes would be not be limited either. I play games where you must manage every last torpedo - and players gleefully do so.

Part of this issue is a misunderstanding:

Torpedo armed planes do NOT carry torpedoes all the time! Fly against a land target? No torpedoes. Fly over the normal range? No torpedoes. And both are quite correct.
Torpedoes are ONLY a factor IF you are in a reasonable distance of base.

Part of this issue is a failure to grasp technical reality:

Small airfields CAN handle torpedoes. Wether or not they DO handle them is a different subject - but UP TO THE COMMAND - not a technical limitation. In fact, an aircraft carrier is in fact a "small airfield" - and surely it handles torpedoes. It is the UNIT that matters - the plane and its support elements - not the airfield size. You give me total control, you better not assume I will never put torpedoes - anywhere they might be useful. Because I will do that. WITP does not let players be in control in the direct form of managing where their few torpedoes go - or how many are made even. But it DOES let us manage them by saying "I want to fly a torpedo armed plane on a anti-shipping mission in normal range" - as it should. I think that is perfectly legitimate. Complaining "this isn't historical" is missing the point: the ONLY question is "can it be done?" IF it can be done, your opponent gets to decide IF it is done. War properly includes the unlikely as well as the likely - and you don't get to make the choices of the other side. Either operational choices, logistic c hoices or production choices. Not yours to make.

If you want to SELF restrict - fine - do so. Just don't expect, demand or advocate the enemy do the same. Maybe HE puts more resources in torpedoes - and if it is me - bet on it. An efficient weapon - Japan in particular having the best on the planet should focus more on them.

This war is unbalanced - so the game is as well. Japan is horribly penalized. Just by its size. And by its long list of enemies. Take away the short list of advantages it has, it is not a contest any more. Why play if Japan MUST repeat its mistakes - and not allocate or produce or distribute enough torpedoes?. Just surrender and be done with it.

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 49

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 1:42:48 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

In Friedman's US Aircraft carriers appendix D there are several magazine loadouts. below is the Enterprise in Oct 43

100lb GP 504
500lb GP 288
500lb SAP 288
1000lb GP 378
1000lb SAP 378
1000lb AP 378
1600lb AP 18
2000lb GP 18
325lb DC 288
100lb Inc 288
Torpedoes 36

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned. Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number. #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

quote:

Without counting DCs and antipersonnel bombs that's over 40 anti-ship sorties per SBD assigned. Seems a bit much on the bombs...but then maybe the US CVs should have a higher max sortie number. #Torps more or less commeasurate with IJN though...roughly 2 anti-ship attack sorties per TBF.

Even WWII carriers were big ships, and bomb's don't take up a lot of space. Also, keep in mind that they usually operated for weeks at a time before reloading from AEs, and that in port. They had to carry that many bombs to be able to accomplish the mission assigned for several weeks, possibly.

But, torpedoes are finicky beasts, take constant tinkering, and require shops, special storage, and tender loving care if they are to work and/or not explode in your face.

The thing about Betty's is that I have had raids of 100+ Bettys hit task forces off Guadalcanal with torpedos and then come back that day with another raid (smaller) and use up more torpedos than the entire KB would use for a mission. THAT is wrong. Personally, I never attack shipping at sea with FE bombers, because I want to play a game which reflects at least a semblance of reality, and reality was that B17s and B24s couldn't hit the broad side of a bulls butt with a bass fiddled when aiming at a ship, unless it was tied up to a pier, not singled up, and not ready to steam.

The best defense against Betty's flying torpedo missions is to pound the bases from which they fly with FE bombers. That is more of what they were designed to do anyway.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 50

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 3:35:46 PM

Oleg Mastruko

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It is quite true that torpedoes are a production bottleneck. More so historically than should be in the game. Japan lost 300 torpedoes by being stupid (putting them on two raiders lost in the Indian Ocean).

So IJN put 300 torpedos on two marginally important ships they didn't know how to use anyway, and were carrying ~40 torps (give or take a few) per ship on their first class CVs?

I hereby return my "Jap fanboi club" membership card and join the "These guys oughta had their heads examined fanboi" club

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 51

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 3:50:19 PM

Feinder

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

quote:

I have seen raids in excess of 500 bombers from level 5 fields and raids over 400 bombers from level 4. Even level 3 airfields put up sizeable raids that are virtually impossible to stop.

Please to post combat reports.

Thanks,
-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 52

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 6:21:56 PM

jolly_pillager

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

I agree with whoever posted the idea before that applying the die roll mechanic currently used for 1000# AP Bombs should be applied to torpedoes as well.

Would fix the problem nicely I think...without recoding everything and without forcing the player to track yet another supply item.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 53

RE: Torpedos usage - 7/31/2006 6:50:39 PM

bradfordkay

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

Sid, if torpedo production was correctly modeled, I would have no problem with torpedoes at small bases. In this thread we have been discussing "house rules" to limit aerial torpedo usage to give the game a more "realistic flavour". Do you think it realistic that the Japanese can grab Jolo Is and the next day be torpedoing all shipping in and out of Darwin? The losses to aerial torpedoes in this game are very high, extraordinarily high when compared to the real war. There are those of us who would like to see this curtailed somewhat.

I agree with jolly pillager and whoever he was agreeing with: the extra die roll a la 1000lb bombs would be an acceptable solution. Barring that, I like a house rule that slightly restricts their usage to more developed bases just to stop some of the silliness.

As an example of this silliness, in my newest game (Dec 18, '41), the AI has over 400 a/c based at Kuching and I am now having serious difficulties getting anything in and out Singapore, Palembang, Tarakan and Balikpapan. When you consider the fact that in the real war shipping continued to sail in and out of Singapore up to the last minute - and very few torpedo attacks were made upon this shipping (the vast majority of anti-shipping strikes here were bombing runs, not torpedo runs), the game has this wrong.

Please don't act like those who want this addressed are wild eyed fanboys. We are long term wargamers, students of the theatre, who are seeing something that allows extremely ahistorical outcomes. I have no problem with either side trying something new, something that might not have happened IRL. I do have a problem with something happening that goes way beyond what was historically possible. This is the situation that we have right now.

You talk about Japan being horribly restricted by the game, and yet if you read the AARs, how many allied auto victories have been occurring? Compare this to how many Japanese auto victories... your statement does not ring true.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to jolly_pillager)

Post #: 54