Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


We haven't worked on this mod. If we play another game together we might. I don't think the editor work would be that bad. Tedious maybe, but not complex. Made easier by not being necessary for any new construction subs after the Great Healing date in September 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


We haven't worked on this mod. If we play another game together we might. I don't think the editor work would be that bad. Tedious maybe, but not complex. Made easier by not being necessary for any new construction subs after the Great Healing date in September 1943.

I really like this idea. I stole it and just put it in Focus Pacific. I hope you don't mind!

The way I worked it in the editor was to create new Mk14 torpedo devices with a smaller dud rate. I then created submarine conversions for USN 1942 submarines to a version that uses this new Mk14 (which I named Mk14A simply for ease of identifying the different device). This sub upgrade takes 45 days, which I believe is a significant enough time that it creates some real choice for the allied player. Each of the classes retain their original stats, with the exception of the Mk14A upgrade. The Mark14A versions of the subs miss out on their class upgrades until mid/late 43, at which time they rejoin the upgrade path, as the dud rates are adjusted by then so the Mk14A conversion is no longer necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Q: what initial dud rate did you assign? It's the important one given how the reduction path is hard-coded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

2 Stupid questions. 1) why not enable the fleet subs to use MK 10's? 2) why didn't they enable the fleet boats to use the MK 10 in real life? Is there something different about the tubes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Q: what initial dud rate did you assign? It's the important one given how the reduction path is hard-coded.

I assigned the Mk 14 A a dud rate of 25%. Because it's a different device however, I don't know if the global dud rate will affect this device. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mark 10s don't suffer from the hard-coded dud rate, do they?

Edit: In the devices screen, the Mk 14 starts with an 80% dud rate, and the Mk 10 starts with a 15% dud rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



So a beginning rate of 25 skips the 1/43 healing altogether. If you were to pick something between the current 80 and your 25--say, 60--then on 1/43 you come down to 40 on the modded boats and stay there until 9/43 when they go to 10 with the rest. Go with 50 and you mod to 30. Etc.

My guess is the database has a data field to ID a device as a torpedo and thus apply the EXE's hard-coded reductions. Note that these reductions apply to all torpedoes, not just the Mk 14, and not to just submarine torpedoes. They also heal up the woeful Mk13 air-dropped fish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



So a beginning rate of 25 skips the 1/43 healing altogether. If you were to pick something between the current 80 and your 25--say, 60--then on 1/43 you come down to 40 on the modded boats and stay there until 9/43 when they go to 10 with the rest. Go with 50 and you mod to 30. Etc.

My guess is the database has a data field to ID a device as a torpedo and thus apply the EXE's hard-coded reductions. Note that these reductions apply to all torpedoes, not just the Mk 14, and not to just submarine torpedoes. They also heal up the woeful Mk13 air-dropped fish.

I think this should still be OK - because the new device has a dud rate of 25%, they won't receive the 1/43 dud rate reduction, because their dud rate is not higher than 49%. However, they will still receive the 9/43 dud rate reduction, as their adjusted dud rate is higher than 20.

So for these subs, the progression would look like this:

Start of game dud rate: 80%
1/42 Mk 14A conversion dud rate: 25% (which is still higher than any other sub torpedo in the game IIRC)
1/43 healing dud rate: 25% (No change)
9/43 dud rate: 10%, all subs are now back in line with their stock dud rate.

Too me, reducing the dud rate from 80% to 60% - taking the odds of a working torpedo from 1 in 5 to 2 in 5 just isn't worth the yard time, even if on 1/43 that changes to 3 in 5. Taking the dud rate from 1 in 5 to 3 out of 4 definitely is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



So a beginning rate of 25 skips the 1/43 healing altogether. If you were to pick something between the current 80 and your 25--say, 60--then on 1/43 you come down to 40 on the modded boats and stay there until 9/43 when they go to 10 with the rest. Go with 50 and you mod to 30. Etc.

My guess is the database has a data field to ID a device as a torpedo and thus apply the EXE's hard-coded reductions. Note that these reductions apply to all torpedoes, not just the Mk 14, and not to just submarine torpedoes. They also heal up the woeful Mk13 air-dropped fish.

I think this should still be OK - because the new device has a dud rate of 25%, they won't receive the 1/43 dud rate reduction, because their dud rate is not higher than 49%. However, they will still receive the 9/43 dud rate reduction, as their adjusted dud rate is higher than 20.

So for these subs, the progression would look like this:

Start of game dud rate: 80%
1/42 Mk 14A conversion dud rate: 25% (which is still higher than any other sub torpedo in the game IIRC)
1/43 healing dud rate: 25% (No change)
9/43 dud rate: 10%, all subs are now back in line with their stock dud rate.

Too me, reducing the dud rate from 80% to 60% - taking the odds of a working torpedo from 1 in 5 to 2 in 5 just isn't worth the yard time, even if on 1/43 that changes to 3 in 5. Taking the dud rate from 1 in 5 to 3 out of 4 definitely is.

To be clear, you are correct on how the 25% would work. My point is do you want to go that low that early? Many Japan players would object. The MK 14 did have a dud problem--actually three of them that co-mingled and masked the problem for months. Some local commanders and some boat COs did local mods that solved or lessened the effects of one or more problems. This happened at different times, to different degrees, in different commands. The mod Lokasenna and I discussed was an attempt to model this a bit, to not make the dud rate a one-size-fits-all issue that has a force-wide switch on the two relevant dates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


We haven't worked on this mod. If we play another game together we might. I don't think the editor work would be that bad. Tedious maybe, but not complex. Made easier by not being necessary for any new construction subs after the Great Healing date in September 1943.

I really like this idea. I stole it and just put it in Focus Pacific. I hope you don't mind!

The way I worked it in the editor was to create new Mk14 torpedo devices with a smaller dud rate. I then created submarine conversions for USN 1942 submarines to a version that uses this new Mk14 (which I named Mk14A simply for ease of identifying the different device). This sub upgrade takes 45 days, which I believe is a significant enough time that it creates some real choice for the allied player. Each of the classes retain their original stats, with the exception of the Mk14A upgrade. The Mark14A versions of the subs miss out on their class upgrades until mid/late 43, at which time they rejoin the upgrade path, as the dud rates are adjusted by then so the Mk14A conversion is no longer necessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And of course it was much easier to reverse engineer a German torpedo and put that into production , then open the MK 10 back up, of which we had plans, jigs, tools , and experienced people who had worked on them. Our military never changes , does it?

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And of course it was much easier to reverse engineer a German torpedo and put that into production , then open the MK 10 back up, of which we had plans, jigs, tools , and experienced people who had worked on them. Our military never changes , does it?

Production of the Mark 10 ended around 1920. Putting them back into production would be like putting the F-14 back in production today. Is there anyone left at the factory who remembers building them? Where were the jigs stored, or were they modified for newer torpedo models?

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In original WITP, wasn't there an option to set up where the two American CVs started using a baseball analogy?? The four were historical, both Lex and Enterprise at Pearl, Lex at Pearl, and Enterprise at Pearl. I used it vs AI, but don't recall anybody using it for PBEM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Zuck

So the dud rate for Mk14 is 80%?
WOW!
My opponent then is extremely lucky we are almost in July of 1942 and he has had maybe ONE DUD!
I don't remember ANY, but he claims he got One.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

And of course it was much easier to reverse engineer a German torpedo and put that into production , then open the MK 10 back up, of which we had plans, jigs, tools , and experienced people who had worked on them. Our military never changes , does it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

And of course it was much easier to reverse engineer a German torpedo and put that into production , then open the MK 10 back up, of which we had plans, jigs, tools , and experienced people who had worked on them. Our military never changes , does it?

It's not that simple. If, as I'm sure was the case as reported above, the MK 10 was significantly shorter than the Mk14 and its brothers, the fleet boat tubes could have been a problem in at least two areas. The tripping latch has to fit in a long slot inside the tube so the torpedo engine is ordered to start as the fish is impelled forward at launch. In our tubes, which could still take MK 14s as my boat was built in the early 1960s, the slot was about 18 inches long and about four feet forward of the breech door (from 35 YO memory.) Also, gyros had to be set with T-handled wrenches inserted through holes in the tube that mated with adjustment slots on the fish. I believe depth and speed settings too, although these could often be pre-set in the TR. Gyros had to be set during the approach to target. If the tube's holes didn't line up with the slots on the torpedo, no gyro setting. And gyros were used almost all the time. A perfect perpendicular approach to track was a very rare geometry.

Torpedo tubes these days are part of the pressure hull. I believe that was the case in the fleet boats too. Modifying them would be major shipyard work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In short, 1942 really, really, REALLY matters.

That all makes sense Bullwinkle.

I think a lot of the problem stems from the flexibility of the Japanese war machine vs the Allies, and I think you're on to something when you talk about how Japanese players have been able to utilize the economic tools available to them to a level that was probably not originally thought possible. Bottom line, the WitP the Allies are asked to fight an enemy that - in the hands of a competent Japanese player - is much more powerful than it's historical counterpart, and must do so with only it's own historical tools.

I think that is why I'm so comfortable with what-if scenarios and mods in WitP:AE - the game stops being a historical simulation the moment the Japanese rush a carrier or new airframe, so adding other non-historical elements doesn't seem like it's tarnishing the purity of the game as it does to others. I have respect for their position, but I don't share it.

What would you think about more flexibility for the allies through tools like Juan's aircraft mod? I'm thinking a system that actually has all the Indian, American and Australian emergency reinforcements starting in the game, but that has them under a static HQ, so PP needs to be paid to release them - giving the allied player additional forces but making them pay the PP cost. A small increase in PP per turn could be added as well, as most allied players are short on PP for what they want to do in 42 as it is.

Honestly, just switching the reliable USN torpedoes toggle to "ON" might solve a lot of the sub problems. I agree that the USN subs aren't as effective as they were historically, and by the time the USN torpedoes are reliable in game, Japan's ASW capability is such that they can't be put to proper use. Starting the game with reliable USN torpedoes gives them a window to actually interdict shipping in a more historic manner.

I'm just spitballing here, partially because I'm still working on my (very) non-historical, and frankly implausible alternate history mod, and I'm looking for ideas, and partially because I find it fascinating how good players can bend the framework of a game to their advantage. While I'm primarily and AFB, I have a huge amount of respect for the JFBs that eke out their results from an industry design that is byzantine at best.

There have been few (or no?) mods that aid the Allies. The major what-if mods serve to make the IJN even more dominant and we see them romping all over the WC in AARs. I don't know why there haven't been more Allied-focused mods. Probably few Japan players would paly against them.

Juan's planes idea is a good one, but it sort of had a life in the modder sub-forum and then seemed to fade. Your idea of making the emergency packages buyable has merit too, but only if the PP budget is increased as you say. 50/day in stock with no starting pool doesn't get it done now. I played one AI campaign with Allied daily PP at 70 and it was a very different game.

However, I have also experimented with dud torpedoes OFF and it's a no-go for me. Too many boats in Manila, too short transits to known invasion gotta-haves for Japan. Carnage on the transports.

That said, the Allied sub war is the poorest part of the game IMO. Was in WITP too. Not a criticism of the dev teams, but GG has always loved airplanes and it shows. The AE team's charge was not wholesale re-writes and their changes to sub, especially zones, were great. But the sub war models just don't work to make this warfare community the dominant force it was in RL. Taken on balance, submarines had more to do with defeating Japan than airplanes did. In the game they're punks.

There are several main areas where the game models fail:

1. DL drives all. There are no sensor models in AE; DL stands in for many things. But the DL model is built to service surface ships. There is no sub-model to account for how submarines operate. In the war the routine was to patrol at PD and hunt at night. The game doesn't have a DL for submerged. In the game DL persists across 12-hour phases. In RL a dived submarine would clear datum in minutes on an unknown course and speed and within an hour present the same initial detection problem again to the enemy. In the game a sub is found, hit, a DL of 10 assigned, and it's worthless for that day.

2. Initial detection and attack ratios are too high. In RL, certainly from 1943 onward, the most typical method of detecting a USN sub was to have a merchant in company explode and burn. Most severe damagings and sinkings by ASW were in response to a sub which made itself known, not one detected before the attack. The game has randoms for this; they're too high.

3. Again, by randoms and some sort of coefficient system, the game assigns the sub a target. Far too many times it's an escort. Up to half the time in my experience. Look at targets sunk in the official post-war records. Look at escort versus merchant ratios. In the game code the sub almost always gets only one attack per turn. Most escorts have high maneuver ratings. The one attack usually misses and the sub now has a DL of 10 mostly. It's useless unless moved and it re-acquires a new TF. This happens rarely. Most of my subs, if they get in an attack per patrol, only get one. Again, read patrol reports.

4. By far the biggest factor in the limp sub results is the attack code. Each sub fires at one ship in its TF in almost all occasions. In RL, once a convoy of nay size was found and the escorts sorted out, multiple ships were targeted in the initial spread. If the convoy was large enough the sub would spin to bring to stern tubes to bear as well. After radar was installed, a night attacker could also attack, evade, end-around, and re-attack farther up the track. The game has none of this. If you want to see perhaps the best example of what I'm talking about, read the MOH citation for USS Parche and CO "Red" Ramage.

5. The USN sub war leaned heavily on intel intercepts, far more than are available in the game. They sank or helped sink 11 IJN carriers for example. Even half that in an AE game would find JFBs howling. But that's the history.

Almost everything affecting the sub war is hidden in the EXE unfortunately. The one major factor that isn't is the dud rate. The "healing" dates and percentages are hard-coded, but the initial dud rate is exposed in the editor. Lokasenna and I discussed a mod where by the historic dud rate reduction--which was different by theater and intermediate commander--could be adjusted at a cost to the Allied player through the upgrade system. Under this, new Mk 14 devices would be created with faster down-steps in the dud rate. These new devices would be available only in new, interim upgrades that demanded an extra transit home and time in the yard or alongside the AS. This would serve to allow the Allied player to customize the sub force a bit. Some boats could be left as now in the front lines with the current dud rate trajectory through the fall of 1943 when dud rates flatline across the force. Other boats could be rotated home to accelerate the reduction in the dud rate by being taken off line for a period of a month to six weeks or so. The Japanese player would have no knowledge of if, when, or how many.

We haven't worked on this mod. If we play another game together we might. I don't think the editor work would be that bad. Tedious maybe, but not complex. Made easier by not being necessary for any new construction subs after the Great Healing date in September 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
Even during the grim torpedo times, 1942, I will find Allied subs still sinking, on average, about one to two merchant ships per day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Bullwinkle,

I have to take some exception here. While your individual points have merit, I find that the totality of the Allied submarine war quite effective against the Japanese. The model could use some tweaking, but he results are -- in my experience -- quite devastating to the Japanese economy as in real life.

While everyone's experience is probably different, my expectation is that Allied subs will come close to shutting down the Japanese economy by '44. Even during the grim torpedo times, 1942, I will find Allied subs still sinking, on average, about one to two merchant ships per day. Much more in '43.

So, it isn't an "event" as much as it is a "process." As you mention, there are few dramatic sub attacks on CV's (one or two effective attacks per game per side in my experience). However, Allied subs can (and in my experience do) sink hundreds of merchants in '42 and '43 -- so much so that there are slim pickings in '44 and later.

While I agree that some of the items above seem odd and ill-conceived, I have to revert to my observations that on a macro scale the sub-sim portion of WITP-AE seems to work just fine.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I believe the Mark 10 was long out of production when the war started and the supply was used by the old DDs and S boats. When they were gone, they were gone. By the end of 1942 the S-boats were out of front line service and all the old DDs were being converted to some other use.

The Mark 10 was the same diameter as the Mark 14, but the Mark 14 was much longer. It would have required modifying the tubes to use the Mark 10s. By the time the bras became convinced the Mark 14 had problems, the Mark 10 was mostly out of service and what stocks did exist at the start of the war were mostly exhausted. Possibly some were scrapped when the torpedo carriers were taken out of service.

Bill

And of course it was much easier to reverse engineer a German torpedo and put that into production , then open the MK 10 back up, of which we had plans, jigs, tools , and experienced people who had worked on them. Our military never changes , does it?

It's not that simple. If, as I'm sure was the case as reported above, the MK 10 was significantly shorter than the Mk14 and its brothers, the fleet boat tubes could have been a problem in at least two areas. The tripping latch has to fit in a long slot inside the tube so the torpedo engine is ordered to start as the fish is impelled forward at launch. In our tubes, which could still take MK 14s as my boat was built in the early 1960s, the slot was about 18 inches long and about four feet forward of the breech door (from 35 YO memory.) Also, gyros had to be set with T-handled wrenches inserted through holes in the tube that mated with adjustment slots on the fish. I believe depth and speed settings too, although these could often be pre-set in the TR. Gyros had to be set during the approach to target. If the tube's holes didn't line up with the slots on the torpedo, no gyro setting. And gyros were used almost all the time. A perfect perpendicular approach to track was a very rare geometry.

Torpedo tubes these days are part of the pressure hull. I believe that was the case in the fleet boats too. Modifying them would be major shipyard work.

OK, it appears it was possible to use fleet boat tubes for MK 10s, and even British torpedoes, with some extra work and gear. And I had mis-remembered and conflated the tripping latch with the stop bolt mechanism.

From the 1944 publication:

"OPERATING AND TEST PROCEDURES

OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. TORPEDOES (U.S.)
All U. S. Navy torpedoes have the starting lever, the side setting gyro setting sockets, the-depth setting sockets, and the speed setting sockets (when fitted) in the same locations relative to the center line of the torpedo and to its tail. Torpedoes are divided into three groups according to the location of the guide stud, the distances from the tail to the front of the guide stud being 109.0 inches, 141.44 inches, or 150.44 inches, depending upon the length of the torpedo.

The torpedo tubes described in this pamphlet were designed primarily for the Mark 14 torpedo, which has the front of the guide stud 141.44 inches from the end of the tail, hence they will accommodate such torpedoes without any adjustment or alteration of either the tube or the torpedo. The
length of this torpedo has been increased to 246.0 inches, but this increase in length does not in any way affect the operation of the torpedo tube.
These tubes were designed also to accommodate the Mark 10 Modification 3 torpedoes, which have the front of the guide stud 109.0 inches from the tail, by changing the stop bolt to the rear housing, described in Chapter S, page 109 of this pamphlet. With this torpedo, however, as with all others except the Mark 14 and Modifications, it is necessary to use the gyro setting socket adapter described in Chapter 7, in the section on the Gyro setting mechanism, and specifically on page 90. This adapter is required if gyro angles are to be set while this torpedo is loaded in the tube. Mark 10 Modification 3 torpedoes are originally issued with a guide stud which is Tee shaped in

cross section, and which is too high to suit the guide slot in torpedo tubes such as those described in this pamphlet. The flat, low guide stud used on the Mark 14 torpedoes is to be used. This guide stud has holes for four bolts, whereas the Mark 10 Modification 3 torpedo air flask is tapped for only three bolts. Therefore, when attaching the guide stud on the torpedo, the vacant hole in the guide stud should be placed toward the tail of the torpedo.
The foregoing also applies to torpedoes Mark 9 and Modifications. In addition, on older Modifications of Mark 9 torpedoes, the depth index runs to only 25 feet instead of to 50 feet as on modern torpedoes, and the scale index is 51 degrees of dial to five feet of depth instead of 20 degrees to five feet, so that the scale on the depth setting mechanism on the tube may not be read directly when these torpedoes are
being used (although, from the foregoing information, an equivalent scale may be readily prepared).
In Chapter 2, describing the barrel, reference is made, briefly, to the overall lengths and the effective lengths of bow and stern tubes, the effective length referring to the length of torpedoes that can be accommodated in the tubes. Experience on any submarine will soon make it possible to determine at a glance whether any given torpedo of a known length can be fitted into either the bow or the stern tubes of the particular vessel. There are certain torpedoes, principally the Marks 11, 12, and 15 torpedoes, of the original length of 271.0 inches, which can be fired from the stern tubes of some submarines. These torpedoes, however, have the front of the standard guide stud 150.44 inches from

the tail, therefore a special guide stud (see O.P. 586) must be used for these- torpedoes, and the lower end of the stop bolt must be shaped to fit the special guide stud. The stop bolts now issued are so shaped, these being shown in all applicable illustrations in this pamphlet.

2. TORPEDOES (BRITISH)

Certain British torpedoes are of suitable length for firing from the tubes described in this pamphlet by using the special guide stud, although none of the operating or setting mechanisms on the tube will line up properly with the torpedo. The "air lever," which corresponds with the starting lever on USN torpedoes, is farther forward, and is to port of the torpedo center line instead of to starboard. Furthermore, as the air lever swings to the rear to start the torpedo, its tip rises above the 21.125 inches inside diameter of the tube. Hence, should it be found necessary to attempt to use these British torpedoes, it will be necessary to improvise means, such as a lanyard, for starting the torpedo, also to cut off the tip of the air lever so that it will not dig into the wall of the tube when the lanyard is pulled. "

http://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/tubes/chap11.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Bullwinkle,

I have to take some exception here. While your individual points have merit, I find that the totality of the Allied submarine war quite effective against the Japanese. The model could use some tweaking, but he results are -- in my experience -- quite devastating to the Japanese economy as in real life.

While everyone's experience is probably different, my expectation is that Allied subs will come close to shutting down the Japanese economy by '44. Even during the grim torpedo times, 1942, I will find Allied subs still sinking, on average, about one to two merchant ships per day. Much more in '43.

So, it isn't an "event" as much as it is a "process." As you mention, there are few dramatic sub attacks on CV's (one or two effective attacks per game per side in my experience). However, Allied subs can (and in my experience do) sink hundreds of merchants in '42 and '43 -- so much so that there are slim pickings in '44 and later.

While I agree that some of the items above seem odd and ill-conceived, I have to revert to my observations that on a macro scale the sub-sim portion of WITP-AE seems to work just fine.

Regards,
Feltan

I have never seen an AAR come close to the 4 million tons-plus of RL. If you sink 1-2 per day you're playing against a VERY bad Japanese opponent. Sorry, but true.

Edit: Against Lokasenna, a very good Japan player who has massive assets devoted to air ASW, in early October 1943, with my FOW, I have sunk 71 ships by Mk 14. Nine by Mk 10.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scondon87

Against the AI, I can sometimes manage that 1-2 ships/day total. Depends on if I guess where their convoy routes are that week.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Thanks Moose. Frankly I always felt that if the "experts" got out of the way , the crews would figure a way to make it work. Probably not in the safest way , but......(if you wanted to be safe , you wouldn't volunteer to be on a US fleet boat on an "Empire Patrol" anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I have never seen an AAR come close to the 4 million tons-plus of RL. If you sink 1-2 per day you're playing against a VERY bad Japanese opponent. Sorry, but true.

Edit: Against Lokasenna, a very good Japan player who has massive assets devoted to air ASW, in early October 1943, with my FOW, I have sunk 71 ships by Mk 14. Nine by Mk 10.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Thanks Moose. Frankly I always felt that if the "experts" got out of the way , the crews would figure a way to make it work. Probably not in the safest way , but......(if you wanted to be safe , you wouldn't volunteer to be on a US fleet boat on an "Empire Patrol" anyway.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer