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: Let me just adjust the gas a little here...

 
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: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/6/2004 6:08:36 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


the game generally doesn't allow torpedo attacks on ships in port (or has that been
changed..., it's hard to keep up).


If you are refering to "disbanded" ships in port. I believe that is correct, but as far as I know air torpedo attacks on docked ships are still allowed. I am still seeing those Betty & Nells useing their torpedos in Singapore and Manila Naval bases.


I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not)

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 121
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/6/2004 6:33:05 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

[
I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not)


They are. Difference however between attacking TF's and ships in ports (game-wise) is that, assuming full supply and normal range attacks, torpedo capable aircraft will always attack TF's with torpedoes. Against ships in port, torpedo capable aircraft will split between bombs and torpedoes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 122
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 4:07:50 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 123
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 4:37:43 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such.


That used to be the case ... You also could not damage a ship in port. It was the great escape trick ... run for a port and disband.

You no longer have the UV safety net of hiding in a port. Now a port attack (aircraft) will divide it's attention between the actual port facility and ships anchored there. While torpedoes in all ports were not possible, the data to model every port in the game as to whether it could or could not be attacked in such a manner does not exist.

"subject" to torpedo attack is referring to submarine attacks, not air attacks.

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 124
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 5:31:50 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Ok, thanks for the heads up. I am happy to see the ole UV anchored ships protected by Magic force field trick done away with. If I understand you correctly "anchored" ships are still not subject to sub attack however. Correct?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 125
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 5:43:13 PM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 126
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 5:58:25 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		You mean multiple engined level bombers, right?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Bulldog61)
Post #: 127
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 6:02:07 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeKraemer

I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port.


No one is talking about LBA dropping torpedoes Mike, we are talking about torpedo bombers dropping torpedoes.

(in reply to Bulldog61)
Post #: 128
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 6:12:07 PM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline 		maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits.

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 129
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 6:32:55 PM   
Speedysteve

 

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

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits.


Hi,

I think this may still have been hits on the port 'accidently' hitting the ships docked rather than the aircraft specifcally targetting the ships docked there.

Regards,

Steven

(in reply to sven6345789)
Post #: 130
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 7:26:50 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 131
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 7:45:04 PM   
barbarrossa


Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline 		Hi,

Perhaps "anchorage" is more descriptive of Ulithi and Kwajalein than "port".

First post. This is going to be a heckuva game.

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 132
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 8:09:19 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		all torpedo capable aircraft can launch torps at a port target but it will be a preportion as mentioned between bombs and torps

_____________________________


(in reply to barbarrossa)
Post #: 133
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 8:12:27 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		It is not even that simple. Take for instance ports like Noumea and Efate during '42. There were times that cargo ships lay at anchor for months while they tried to catch up with port handling equipment to be able to unload the goods because the dock's gantry cranes were not big enough to be able to offload the equipment.

These ships were not tied up at the pier unloading, they were sitting at anchor, possibly even outside any submarine netting, ripe for the picking. Yet by our game scope, they would be considered disbanded in port.

There really isn't any global rule that can be applied that suits all cases, even with valid port data unless one took port data coupled *with* ship capacity and came up with a unique system for each port that had three classes of disbanded: (a) At the pier/dock and (b) At the anchorage and (c) outside the anchorage. (a) & (b) would represent ships that had specific restrictions and (c) would fall outside the restriction but there would also be a chance based on the port data that (b) could become a target (ie: deep water, possible long run in for TB aircraft, etc)

(in reply to barbarrossa)
Post #: 134
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 8:22:56 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madflava13

With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...

You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map
where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially
modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to
them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were
huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft
deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release.
The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the
ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers
at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what
really makes this a problem.

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 135
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 8:30:57 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem.


Agreed. I think there is a way to code "torp attack ineligible ports" however without adding alot of code. It'd be an attribute of the port in the database. In the airstrike routine that determines the load out this would add a conditional statement (two lines of code at most) that loaded bombs rather than torps on air groups whose mission is port attack and whose target hex is marked.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 136
There is bigger problem here... - 4/7/2004 8:37:44 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map
where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially
modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to
them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were
huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft
deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release.
The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the
ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers
at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what
really makes this a problem.



IMHO (and 100% connected to this) there is one other important issue here:


The UV (and WitP) does not differentiate Port size with anchor size (I think "Subchaser" brought this up first few weeks ago)...

For UV (and WitP) game engine any base with same port size is same regardless of actual geography conditions (i.e. you can place whole fleet with every single ship that exists at anchor in any port size => 3).


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 137
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/7/2004 8:46:49 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Hmm, now you are throwing a different issue into the mix, so much for clarity of thought.

Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away.

Do you have any sources that show the effective range of these aircraft on a torpedo attack profile? Judging by the bombload capacity, if they carried a torpedo instead of bombs, they actually had MORE room for fuel because the torpedo was lighter then their bomb load capacity. While there would be some aerodynamic differences (ie: drag from the torpedo), their effective range logically would not be radically different then that of their reduced bombload range.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 138
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/7/2004 8:57:18 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I think the Betty/Nell carried the torpedo inside the aircraft. They had to remove the bombbay door. The aircraft that attacked RK Turner on 8 Aug were Betty with the bomb bay door removed.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 139
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/7/2004 9:10:54 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away.



Just useing empirical evidence, the distance from South Indo-China to Singapore and the distance from Formosa to Manila is less than the distance between Rabaul and Lunga. So it appears to me that geography not range was the defining reason torp attack were not attempted in those ports. Certainly range wasnt a factor at Suribaya, Batavia, and Darwin. Personally I dont feel it would be too difficult to code. Virtually all non-atoll harbors were imune to at least multi-engine torp bomber attack. But I have resigned myself to live with it because I want to play this game NOW. Hey BTW shouldnt this game be in Beta by now?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 140
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/7/2004 9:28:05 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		I always hated in UV when the AI would launch a torpedo attack from Rabaul on ships at Cairns. I don't have data on historical ranges, but that HAS to be too far for them to fly!

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 141
RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... - 4/7/2004 11:00:43 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madflava13

With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...


Dont have the stats in front of me, but IIRC I believe it was approx. 700 some odd miles with torp. Which Placed Lunga from Rabaul at the end of that range. Carins would be I believe out of range from Rabaul.

(in reply to madflava13)
Post #: 142
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/8/2004 3:24:11 AM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map
where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially
modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to
them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were
huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft
deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release.
The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the
ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers
at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what
really makes this a problem.



IMHO (and 100% connected to this) there is one other important issue here:


The UV (and WitP) does not differentiate Port size with anchor size (I think "Subchaser" brought this up first few weeks ago)...

For UV (and WitP) game engine any base with same port size is same regardless of actual geography conditions (i.e. you can place whole fleet with every single ship that exists at anchor in any port size => 3).


Leo "Apollo11"


I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.

It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP.

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 143
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/8/2004 6:09:26 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[/quote]
I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.

It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP.
[/quote]

An unfortunate, but probably quite accurate assumption.

(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 144
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/8/2004 1:03:05 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Hmm, now you are throwing a different issue into the mix, so much for clarity of thought.


Ahm...

Like I said in my initial message in UV (and WitP I presume) the base port is determined by just one single variable - "Port Size".

Also, as said by "tanjman", the most probable definition of that "Port Size" variable is that it refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, i.e. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.


So... the obvious solution would be to have "Port Size" and "Anchor Size" variables to describe every HEX but, unfortunately, I am afraid that we will never see that happening...

Please Note that "Anchor Size" variable would show the geographic capability of HEX and set how many ships can actually be anchored.

Some special "+" and "-" additional variable would then show availability of torpedo attack with normal torpedoes (i.e. the Pearl Harbor would have "-" because it was safe from ordinary torpedo attacks).


quote:


Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away.

Do you have any sources that show the effective range of these aircraft on a torpedo attack profile? Judging by the bombload capacity, if they carried a torpedo instead of bombs, they actually had MORE room for fuel because the torpedo was lighter then their bomb load capacity. While there would be some aerodynamic differences (ie: drag from the torpedo), their effective range logically would not be radically different then that of their reduced bombload range.


I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote...


But I do know that they carried torpedo in bomb bay (bomb bay doors would then be removed).

IMHO, that means that no range penalty would be present for same weight (i.e. same range for same bomb weight and torpedo weight).


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 145
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/8/2004 3:29:16 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote...


Was replying to Mike really, not you

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 146
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/8/2004 4:47:04 PM   
Apollo11


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote...


Was replying to Mike really, not you


RGR


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 147
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/9/2004 10:19:51 PM   
UndercoverNotChickenSalad


Posts: 3990
Joined: 2/19/2002
From: Denial Aisle
Status: offline 		And mdiehl, I must admit I found your arguments persuasive, if perhaps based on inadequate information for your assessment of the outcome's tendency.

I like mdiehl's posts. He usually always put in a good argument (unless he comes to AoW trying to debate ME, there he ends up getting owned).

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 148
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/9/2004 10:35:54 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Only because you distract me so with the painted trollop in your sig line.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?
Post #: 149
RE: There is bigger problem here... - 4/10/2004 12:15:01 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		What do you mean "the" painted trollop? You talk like that's just some random snippet downloaded off the internet somewhere.

The segment of the "trollop" is really a clip of ChickenSalad shaving last Tuesday.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Let me just adjust the gas a little here... Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.141