RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

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: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

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: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 6:07:02 PM

spence

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

quote:

none of the newer heavily armed boats deployed in the Surigao Straits in '44 did any real damage

At least 30 men manning #1 Fireroom on HIJMS Abukuma would disagree; except that they died when a PT torpedo hit their ship.

[And not to rub salt in anybody's old wounds but Abukuma was later hit multiple times by 4E bombers which started fires which, ultimately reached her torpedos, exploding them and finishing off the ship. (That makes around 7-8 IJN cruisers that died from wounds inflicted by their own torpedos - the USN's decision to remove torpedos from their cruisers doesn't look so faulty in light of the damage done to their IJN counterparts by their own onboard torpedos).]

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 91

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 8:47:35 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

This thread is a very interesting read, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that this game is not 100% historic and never will be....but it is a fun game.

As with all games , a person needs to find a tactic that will work for individual situations. If I take 4 DDs to a base that has 6 PTs, in this game, then I would figure that I just lost 4 DDs.....but if I take 2 BBs, a couple of CAs, maybe a few CLs thrown in with DD escorts, chances are the PTs will become fish habitat and my SF will be unharmed. Is it historic that I had to use a SF in this manor in order to elliminate a few PTS? Probably not, but it works....and it helps me keep my blood pressure from boiling over.

Sometimes I wonder that if the battle of Midway had never happened IRL, how much discussion would there be on this forum on the realism of 3 allied CVs being able to sink 4 Japanese CV in June of 42.

< Message edited by Charbroiled -- 12/4/2006 8:59:45 PM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 92

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 9:00:11 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Whenever I read such a statement then I think on my dozens of Allied BBs that are doing bombardments all over the map even more (because of their number) then I do with Japanese BBs in the first year...

And for those who complain about the IJN doing it I wonder if they ever played further then 1942 and IF THEY THEN RESTRICT THEMSELFES TO NOT USING THEIR 50 ALLIED BBS TO BOMBARD OR ONLY ONE BOMBARDMENT PER BB???

Look Castor, you still don't get it? There is a UAFB (ultimate AFB) bunch of guys here (fortunatly there is a numerous but mostly silent Allied players community) and every debate with UAFB is pointless.

Please, let me explain their behaviour:

1. when someone posted a well documented issue the their first step is negating:

No way, this is not a happening. Why don't you post details? (of course you've posted details but they are ignoring the facts...

if this is not working, then they start:

2. talking about isolate (1%) cases. To prove that, they are start to post examples from their games, while ignoring your data: IMPORTANT NOTE: you MUST accept their examples as the completely truth. Your data worths nothing

Then they just sit and wait knowing that other UAFB will joins the disscusion.

2. Then we can witness a mutual back slapping : oh how smart you are, how good are your arguments.. In addition they offers "historical arguments".

3. Please do not get pissed off when your's "historical arguments" are ignored. What this have with a truth? Even if you still arent convinced it is still not the end:

4.next step: all you have to do is mention is "uber japanese weapons" and you gone off topic but it serves to your purpose. BBs on the bombardment runs, uber powered japanese LBA etc...IMPORTANT NOTE: you are not allowed to argue that same goes for the Allied side...are you nuts?. You can even try late war campaign just to find arguments how much Japan is overpowered - 50 exp pilots can kill one or two Superforts etc...???? IMPORTANT NOTE: do not ever, NEVER ask the question how many games past historical date if Japan is so overpowered. Are you nuts?

Finally, they start to puts words in your mouths, which you didn't say - everEXAMPLE: we are talking about PTs and clearly state more than once it wasnt bombardment TFs. Their responds always ended with "what did you expect that you can bombard my bases in the late 43 without punishment"?

Finally you really should be discouraged an walk away (i have witnessed that quite a lot reasonable players gave up and deosn't allow to themselves to be get involved in pointless "disscusion" anymore)... UAFB continues with drunken party...

I guess these guys are just want to win but they don't know how - so they needs/deserves all help they can get....

God, i wish that someone makes a movie about this... it would be a hell funny movie

... just imagine...

< Message edited by pauk -- 12/4/2006 9:16:41 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 93

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 10:08:59 PM

Feinder

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

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks. "
- William "Billy" Shakespeare.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 94

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 11:15:58 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

why do you feel offended? Ah... the truth hurts.....

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 95

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/4/2006 11:41:07 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

why do you feel offended? Ah... the truth hurts.....

"Always with the negative waves...."

Pauk - don't be grumpy!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 12/4/2006 11:49:39 PM >

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 96

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 6:58:30 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

i'll chime in with my results from my PBEM game...now in May 1943

63 PT - sunk

for

2 Jap DD - sunk
2-4 Jap DD - damaged

seems fair to me (btw not one of my PT's were sunk by aerial strafing...all surface engagements)

Actually you have sunk 4 DDs and 3 more will likely sink. All of these were lost recently after encountering massed PTs and some were finished off by AC after being damaged by the PTs.

I lost 5 of the 6 Jap PTs for nothing in return vs a bombardment TF at Wake.

PTs are annoying but far from a mennace.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 97

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 11:00:33 AM

bradfordkay

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

"2. talking about isolate (1%) cases. To prove that, they are start to post examples from their games, while ignoring your data: IMPORTANT NOTE: you MUST accept their examples as the completely truth. Your data worths nothing"

So, in your world I guess that their data is worth nothing as well?

Feinder posted a series of reports, comprising the whole of a recent game - and that information is absolutely worthless in your eyes? It looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

To me, I see this as another example that the game can have some exaggerated results as well as results that are right on target. Must the game designers castrate every combat routine because some players experience a few of the exaggerated examples and get their panties in a wad?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 98

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 2:55:29 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Greetings Brad,

Every time when i post my experience, i'm being accused of exaggerating. My datas worths nothing for that person - he just ignoring my statistics and expect that his data will be accepted as a truth and nothing but the truth. (sorry guys, but i'm not "Yes massa kind of person")

So, why i would trust the person who clearly state he doesn't care for other's opinion? To answer to your original question, yes i decide not to belive his data. Because I'f i'm the one who exaggerating, then he is exaggerating too...

I won't explain once again, i belive i was quite clear and informative in my analysis. It is up to you to choose if you will trust me or not. But i think i know what you will choose.

If someone doesn't believe that PTs are overpowered, ok it is his opinion. But do not expect that i should be convinced i'm wrong just because someone told me so....

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 99

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 3:24:35 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk
It is up to you to choose if you will trust me or not. But i think i know what you will choose.

Pffft....too right

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 100

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 4:14:21 PM

Feinder

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

I think you're taking things way too personally Pauk.

Your experiences are your own. I am quite sure that every combat result you posted, you did experience. My point was only that folks should post -ALL- combat results to give a meaningful sample that demonstrates...

a. How often do you use/encounter PTs? More encounters will afford more opportunities for peculiar results. They also lend more opportunities for boring results. It's important to see the entire sample, so that an objective conclusion can be reached. You can also presume that as the game enters 1943, when PTs become more numerous, that you'll see more actions with PTs.

b. If someone had relatively few actions, and many (subjective) of them were lop-sided such that capital ships where being sunk left and right by PTs, it -would- reflect an issue. But again, without the ENTIRE sample, posting a few isloated windows merely skews the data. You have an excellent long-running AAR going on the board, which I'm guessing has every combat result available to you. I don't doubt your results. Help the entire community by posting the entire result set.

c. Showing all the engagments also shows how the PTs are being used, and whether the results are comparable to those of other If you see lots of battles of 25x PTs TFs, it would be inappropriate to compare those results to mine (no more than 6x PTs per TF, nor more 2x TFs). But all the same, it would actually be -very- valuable if someone was able to post (all) combat reports when using 25x PT TFs. It -would- be useful to demonstrate if this "tactic" is truely problematic for the game engine (I suspect that it would be). But again, without a large sample, isolated results are meaningless.

-F-

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 101

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 5:10:48 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Ok, this is a way we should both correspodent.

I'm well aware that experience differes a lot. I know what makes PTs so efficient (or ineffcient):

1. crew experience
2. radar
3. dice roll.

In the early stage of the war, radar isn't available for the PTs. PTs have low experience and everything depends on the dice roll.

So, i trust when folks says "PTs are overpovered" or "PTs aren't even annoyance". Some folks got bad dice rolls some got good dice rolls. I do not say this is right or wrong. This is how the game works and i can live with that.

After mid 43 PTs are upgraded with radar and crew is highly experienced. This makes PTs extremely dangerous opponent and i belive a super weapon (you will understand that i won't make any such experiments in my game to confirm my expression - simply can not affort to lost any of my remaining DDs

)

Still, i have impression that this is too much - we have only limited examples from the history (Suriago strait) what happend with these radar equipped boats in the surface battles. Also, i have limited knowledge about allied radar instaled on PTs but from what i know this type wasn't so efficient.

I do not asking for being able to turn allied bases in the dust with naval bombardment in the 43....but i want some flexibility.

I believe that Allies can respond to Combined fleet in the 43 - they should have sufficient force to for the defending key bases. But right now all you can have to do is to put moderate CAP and 12 PTs at the certain base and you are safe. That is why i feel PTs are overpovered.

Allies have plenty of choices for defending their bases - surface TFs, CVs, LBAs from the supporting bases, but they don't need do that - combination of several fighers and PTs will ruin all your plans. And that is why i feels this isn't right.

As for my experience: would like to count all encounters but going through 35 pages is quite hectic... Must admit that i had few battles where my DDs slaughtered PTs for no losses on my side (that was before upgrade). But they served their purpose - naval bombardment didn't worked. I can say that we had "PT battles" in the start of the game, then a very few after march 42 and more in 1943. But don't think we had enormous number of engagements. Perhaps it is my impression, Andy can help here....

Your rule max 2x6 PTs in the hex is more than reasonable, but i've lost 4 DDs to 12 PTs.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 102

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 5:20:55 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

in my game i stopped visiting bases covered by PT - i had always big headache after battles and losses were not adequate to any gains from missions

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 103

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 5:24:31 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Our PT Boat battles have really been in two phases is my recollection unfortunately I have not posted all my results so I cannot go through every combat.

1. DEI/PI phase where the 10 - 12 US PT Boats and the (10??) Dutch ones operated - in these battles my PT Boats did pretty well the Dutch ones I dont recall doing a hell of a lot but the US Boats operating in quite small TF's helped to sink or damage a lot of ships resulting in the last 3 or 4 having very very high experience by the time you finally sank them around Timor - they were especially good at finishing off crippled IJN DD's from the surface battles around Celebes and near the PI.

2. Tarawa and environs after my Gilberts attack - I deployed several PT Boat flotillas to try and defend my bases because I wanted to avoid Bombardments but save my surface fleet for future operations - I dont recall much action because you were busy at Perth at the time. I think zeroes sank most of them.

3. PM/Gili Gili Again I deployed PT boats to defend my bases to prevent shoot and scoot bombardments (after discussion of limits) acked up by a CL led DD flotilla at PM.

4. Recently I have posted several flotillas to Dodobura/Buna on a rotating basis using Gili Gili as their primary base.

I suspect most of the DD Casualties suffered by the IJN happened in our game ocurred as part of 1 as I think POW caught and destroyed a DD flotilla of yours at kendari and the PT Boats did the clean up.

This is all based on my memory I will look over my AAR tonight but I have to admit its not that detailed.

Andy

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 104

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 7:18:14 PM

bradfordkay

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

Pauk, I am not saying that YOU exaggerated the results, I am saying that THE GAME exaggerates the results in many combat calculations. Look at large A2A battles. Does anyone believe that 75 of 78 planes involved on one side would be lost in a single combat on a regular basis? Does anyone believe that a BB TF would only sink a single PC in a TF of 1 PC and 12 AKs?

We have to accept the exaggerated results the game gives us, because - I believe - that overall the game balances things out. I do not wish to see any single form of combat castrated because it occaisionally gives us exaggerated results.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 105

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 8:05:09 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

If anything regarding the naval model is overpowered I'd say it is amphibious TFs. Rarely does one get wiped out by surface combat TFs despite a minimal escort, and I'd hazard 99% of these TFs are rammed onto the beaches to offload their troops in suicide like missions, all because the model does absolutely nothing to address issues like actual durability of these vessels, TF disruption, TF morale, loading and unloading rates etc.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 106

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 8:11:16 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Pauk, I am not saying that YOU exaggerated the results, I am saying that THE GAME exaggerates the results in many combat calculations. Look at large A2A battles. Does anyone believe that 75 of 78 planes involved on one side would be lost in a single combat on a regular basis? Does anyone believe that a BB TF would only sink a single PC in a TF of 1 PC and 12 AKs?

We have to accept the exaggerated results the game gives us, because - I believe - that overall the game balances things out. I do not wish to see any single form of combat castrated because it occaisionally gives us exaggerated results.

Why should we have to accept these results? I for one think that after being in the business of creating these games for over twenty five years the designers should put some effort into improving the models over time and through various releases instead of cashing in on regurgitated concepts and code.

The naval conbat models in WITP are basically identical to the one which was used in the old DOS games like Guadalcanal Campaign and Bomb Alley. One would think that some of the profits made from earlier releases would go into gradually improving the design.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 107

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 8:14:38 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

One would think that some of the profits made from earlier releases would go into gradually improving the design.

And people say you are a pessimist - sounds like cock-eyed optimism to me...

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 108

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 10:08:00 PM

tabpub

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

Ok, so the main problem would appear to be how to handle the little buggers; meaning coming up with appropriate methods for their deployment and creation.

I will admit that early on, I was "creative" in their spawning; amphibious landing going on, hey I have plenty of supplies on AK's <press the button>, voila, 12 PT's to help defend landing out of virtual thin air. My opponent said, "where the heck did they come from?", told him; he replied, "How would that seem to you in my position?" Thought it over, came up with modified deployment/usage that follows.

1. PT only created at size 9 or 10 ports. If AGP present, size 6+ port allowed to create.
2. Basing - port size dictates the number of PT that call that port home; 4 PT per port size, AGP present increases that by 2 port sizes.
3. PT sit at bases; can go out up to 3 hexes, but only on retire; bringing them home during the day.

That's basically it for me. The main change is the creation; having to make them in a rear area port and then have them "follow" another TF (usually freighters) to their destination is a real pain. Additionally, at weaker bases, they can't get their reloads unless support is there; making the support (AGP) the vulnerable target. Otherwise, they have to sail back to reload their torpedoes.

This method eliminates the "Palmyra" type situations, of creating them in these tiny bases with immediate results. In my game, I have PT's in the Marshalls, at Kwaj and Majuro; they had to sail in from PH with a reinforcement convoy to get there. There is a AGP in the area to provide support, but any more PT's still have to come out of PH, as there is no size 6 port in the Marshalls. So, any losses would be very difficult to come up with replacements for a long time.

Now, major bases are a different creature; Darwin and Rangoon (Oct '43) are crawling with them, and CD, and A/C and fortifications.....but, if they were out from under their aircover...they would be toast, dead, RIP, kaput, etc....

_____________________________

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 pauk)

Post #: 109

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 10:45:26 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I create them on the West Coast and have them follow supply convoys to their destinations. Bit of a pain but keeps the opponents from having a justifiable reason to complain.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 110

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 10:49:52 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

I'm wondering why no one has noticed the greatest ahistorical part of this entire controversy over PT's?

We have seen the numbers now - a grand total of USN 26 PTs lost during the entire lousy war. And that includes two who's tanker was sunk with them in transit.
The mighty Imperial Japanese Navy managed to destroy a whopping 5 PT Boats by direct engagement during the course of the entire war... Whoop dee do.
The Majestic Japanese Air Forces actually got 5 themselves! (why, they actually sank one by strafing during the war! wow!) Not counting two more to kamikaze's.

Yep, the Japs really tore those little boats apart!

Yet in the AARs posted, PT's are routinely knocked off like flies??

Maybe PT's will kill a few more Jap ships than they did historically, because players keep running their warships in harms way...

But what really jumps out at me is - PT Boat survival in the game is WAY TOO LOW!!

Why hasn't anyone noticed that?

_____________________________

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 111

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 10:53:40 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I'm wondering why no one has noticed the greatest ahistorical part of this entire controversy over PT's?

We have seen the numbers now - a grand total of USN 26 PTs lost during the entire lousy war. And that includes two who's tanker was sunk with them in transit.
The mighty Imperial Japanese Navy managed to destroy a whopping 5 PT Boats by direct engagement during the course of the entire war... Whoop dee do.
The Majestic Japanese Air Forces actually got 5 themselves! (why, they actually sank one by strafing during the war! wow!) Not counting two more to kamikaze's.

Yep, the Japs really tore those little boats apart!

Yet in the AARs posted, PT's are routinely knocked off like flies??

Maybe PT's will kill a few more Jap ships than they did historically, because players keep running their warships in harms way...

But what really jumps out at me is - PT Boat survival in the game is WAY TOO LOW!!

Why hasn't anyone noticed that?

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 112

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 11:06:11 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

[/quote]

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

[/quote]

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 113

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/5/2006 11:06:19 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Sorry to say this, but the cyber "fight" IJA vs IJN a.k.a. Generalissimo Nemo vs Admiralissimo El Cid Again (RHSEOS Mega Team) was much more funny, original & passionate. And more important: it was bile free...

I'd like to throw some pop corn from the cheap seats but your show is pathetic. JFB? AFB? Are you cyber people into Totally Irrelevant & Insignificant Cyber Sects?

P.S.:
cyber bile is still utter absurd.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 114

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 6:27:28 AM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

quote:

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

That would make sense if it was established that PTs always ran away from Jap surface forces, but I have read no such thing.

As far as I know, PT's did not hide from every Jap ship they found, quite the contrary.

What we are left with is a game routine that assumes that any contact between PT Boats and Jap surface forces is a regular slugging match that allows the Japs to shoot at PTs as if they were destroyers or bigger. That is why so many more PTs are always lost in a typical game.

In short, the game routines do not take into account how almost impossible it is for a Jap surface ship hit a PT boat. That is why so few PTs were ever lost during the war... not because PTs buggered off and hid until the Japs passed by.

The higher-than-historical amount of Jap DDs lost in the games in question can statistically be laid on the constant exposure players place their ships in. But the ahistorical exchange rate is not a matter of more frequent contact - it's a matter of the game not handling PT survivability meaning - maneuverability and tactics - properly.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 12/6/2006 6:52:23 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Charbroiled)

Post #: 115

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 1:53:14 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

quote:

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

That would make sense if it was established that PTs always ran away from Jap surface forces, but I have read no such thing.

As far as I know, PT's did not hide from every Jap ship they found, quite the contrary.

True. However the Japanese rarely went intentionally hunting for PT boats like some players including myself do. Meaning we have a dedicated surface task force just to engage the PT's - mine usually consists of a CL and 4 DD's. Now if I could only remember to set them to Patrol Do Not retire...

quote:

What we are left with is a game routine that assumes that any contact between PT Boats and Jap surface forces is a regular slugging match that allows the Japs to shoot at PTs as if they were destroyers or bigger. That is why so many more PTs are always lost in a typical game.

In short, the game routines do not take into account how almost impossible it is for a Jap surface ship hit a PT boat. That is why so few PTs were ever lost during the war... not because PTs buggered off and hid until the Japs passed by.

They may have been harder to hit but the game routine is also causing the PT's to stick around for multiple rounds...instead of shooting and scooting.

quote:

The higher-than-historical amount of Jap DDs lost in the games in question can statistically be laid on the constant exposure players place their ships in. But the ahistorical exchange rate is not a matter of more frequent contact - it's a matter of the game not handling PT survivability meaning - maneuverability and tactics - properly.

I would say it is a symptom of both - more frequent contact with dedicated destroyer hunter/killer groups and a mishandling of PT tactics by the game routine....

PT's should be allowed to enter two types of Task Forces - Escort and PT. If in escort they can be issued orders to travel to a new base or destination.

If they are in a PT Task Force - they should be handled similarly to aircraft - be given a particular target hex - be allowed to run day or night missions - then return to base and dock in the same phase - if the player chose to send them out during the day then they would be more vulnerable.

< Message edited by treespider -- 12/6/2006 2:04:14 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 116

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 2:16:18 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

The main issue I will concede on PT Boats is that the operational availablity is to high i.e. they should be more akin to fighter sqns where 2 or 3 out of an 8 boat flotilla is out of service at any one time

These engines are tempremental !!!!

I dont really have an issue with the results achieved in game as I agree which char that its a function of increased activity by both sides and I believe PT Boats were very dangerous to Jap DD's and I also have no problem with Tree's suggested TF types

My issue is that if I had 12 boats at Buna and an AGP only 6 or 8 would be available because the others would be o/s this point is not modelled well in game.

PT Boats should almost have an if above 5 - 8 sys damage may not be used in combat at all for anything type code you can still put them in TF's but they wont move or attack and will be sitting ducks until sys damage is reduced !!!

Make the modifier of accruing sys damage higher on atolls and enormous on open ocean hexes - i.e. 80% chance of 1 sys damage per boat per deep water hex travelled on operations - that would make allied players wary of committing to many to ahistoric raids send all your boats to raid that Jap base 4 hexes away - yup they will get there and back but next week the whole sqn is U/S and the base they came form wide open.

So make the rate or repair and the rate of sys damage accrual high for the PT Boats to try and reflect the operational fragility of the boats

Just something to stop them all being available all the time

That much I would concede is wrong about PT Boats at present - if used defensively in a base where sys damage could be controlled they should be a real detterrent to japanese attacks.

Andy

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 117

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 2:21:40 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Using my example with Pauk - I am rotating PT Boats in and out of Buna and Dobodura with the main base at Gili Gili to rearm trorpedos.

There should be a resonable chance that if I send 2 x 6 Boat flotillas to Buna say and it travels 180 miles then perhaps 3 or 4 of them are U/S for a day or two until they repair after the journey and actually Buna is a low level port so they should have a (50% - 10% x lvl of Port) chance of accruing 1 sys point each day per boat so I will constantly have boats going in and out of commission.

I should pay a penalty for having to re arm the PT Boats with torps at Gili Gili which I dont really at present except for fuel and sys damage that is relatively meaningless

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 118

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 2:58:51 PM

tsimmonds

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

What kinds of leaders end up in charge of PT TFs? Is it just one of the boat skippers, or do you stick in some fire-eater? That might be one possibility for toning things down for those who feel the need, a house rule saying no auto-leader and no leader replacements for PT TFs. Didn't the boats pretty much operate in treys under overall command of the senior skipper?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 119

RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is - 12/6/2006 3:30:22 PM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Make the modifier of accruing sys damage higher on atolls and enormous on open ocean hexes - i.e. 80% chance of 1 sys damage per boat per deep water hex travelled on operations - that would make allied players wary of committing to many to ahistoric raids send all your boats to raid that Jap base 4 hexes away - yup they will get there and back but next week the whole sqn is U/S and the base they came form wide open.

So make the rate or repair and the rate of sys damage accrual high for the PT Boats to try and reflect the operational fragility of the boats

Just something to stop them all being available all the time

I agree!

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 120

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

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: The problem about when folks complain about PTs is