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

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It should be
"In some games where Allied player sends TF into range without air cover the number of ships lost exceeds the historic amount" (I'm faily certain at least 3 of my Allied opponents lost fewer then historic number of transports in course of our games)

Because if the Japanese place a Val daitai on Goodenough Island they will sink the transports with bombs. Or Sally Sentai at Lae they will sink the transports.

Then what will the "fix" be?


If you make torpedos a type of supply and require them to be transported and stored and cared for by a lot of new rules and codes where do you think the Japanese will send them? Rabaul! And if you send TF to PM without CAP they will be attacked by torpedos.

You are right, Russ... I never did quite grasp the concept of air cover in all my thirty some-odd years of playing wargames.


Is there really any need to portray those with whom you disagree in such a manner?

Back when I played f-t-f boardgames, my friends knew me as a(n overly?) cautious commander on the offense, and tenacious on the defense. I do not tend to send forces to their doom, just because I want to meet (or beat) some schedule.

Surely you can come up with a new argument, not the old "it's your poor gameplay that is at fault."

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


In order to launch a torpedo strike the Japanese must have
1. A size 4 or larger airfield
2. A Air HQ
3. 2x required supply
4. 1 escort for every 2 CAP over target.

I'm not so sure here..

In a game I did vs AI, I was Japanese. I captured Midway Is. by Dec 27th. I quickly Flew in about 30-40 G3Ms and G4Ms and about 27 A6Ms.

By Jan 1, the US Navy was launching CV strikes at Midway. My planes launched and torpedoed the Enterprise - Torpedoed that is.
I had no Air HQ there on Midway....

B

[bradfordkay]

" Suppose Port Moresby is a size 3
PM can have 150 fighters on CAP. "


Of course, it is a very long time before PM will have enough air support to be able to put up 150 fighters, unless you are recommending exceeding the support limits (something I strive not to do).

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Mogami


In order to launch a torpedo strike the Japanese must have
1. A size 4 or larger airfield
2. A Air HQ
3. 2x required supply
4. 1 escort for every 2 CAP over target.

I'm not so sure here..

In a game I did vs AI, I was Japanese. I captured Midway Is. by Dec 27th. I quickly Flew in about 30-40 G3Ms and G4Ms and about 27 A6Ms.

By Jan 1, the US Navy was launching CV strikes at Midway. My planes launched and torpedoed the Enterprise - Torpedoed that is.
I had no Air HQ there on Midway....

B

Hi, If you didn't have an Air HQ you were not flying 100 percent of your aircraft.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

You are right, Russ... I never did quite grasp the concept of air cover in all my thirty some-odd years of playing wargames.


Is there really any need to portray those with whom you disagree in such a manner?

Back when I played f-t-f boardgames, my friends knew me as a(n overly?) cautious commander on the offense, and tenacious on the defense. I do not tend to send forces to their doom, just because I want to meet (or beat) some schedule.

Surely you can come up with a new argument, not the old "it's your poor gameplay that is at fault."

Hi, I am not directing anything at anyone.
It has been suggested that torpedos are the problem.
I don't think so. Because no matter what rules you insert Rabaul will be able to launch torpedo attacks.
Tulagi has never been the launch point for a single Betty loaded with a torpedo (no size 3 or smaller airfield has)

Since Rabaul under any set of rules will lauch torpedo attacks the Allied player has to end them by his actions.
I know they can do this because it's been done to me.

I don't want the game fighting the war for me. Thats what I'm worried about. "Fixing" the game to the point there is no reason to play it because everything that does not go exactly according to history has been "fixed" so it does.

(By the way the largest single defeat ever inflicted apon me was carried out by Japanese level bombers not torpedo planes 200+ Sally with 250kg bombs can still sink USN CV)

I have no intent to insult anyone or get into a battle over this. I see that many players agree with this idea. I do not. Since it is an open forum I am posting why I do not.
It's nothing personal.
The same betty/Nell that fly at you fly at me.

[bradfordkay]

Now that's an argument I can respect. You are afraid of unwise changes to the game.

"My point is not that I disagree that torpedo attacks in WITP occur more often then in history but that I don't see the little airfields being the problem."

In this we are in agreement. Where we disagree is that I feel that not every Betty "naval strike" launched from Rabaul, or Kwajelein, or Palau, or Kendari (ad nauseum) should be a torpedo strike. I do not want it to be no strikes as torpedo strikes, either. I just feel that there should be a chance that a normal range naval strike with torpedo carrying level bombers will be with bombs as opposed to torpedoes. This also will help the AI in its attempts to keep the Lae area resupplied as well. Those Aussie TorBeaus can wreak havoc upon any shipping in that area.

[mogami]

Hi, Since the Betty had to be configured to load torpedos (and could not load bombs in such configuration) the issue could be settled by

1. The Japanese player has to decide how his Betty are configured. If torpedo then they are disabled and then repaired but lose the option for any mission that requires bombs.
If bombs (from torpedo config start) then they are disabled and repaired and lose option to load torpedos. (They can however still fly Naval strikes with bombs)

torpedo configured units would also lose the abilty to fly extended range strikes and strikes where supply levels were not sufficent to load torpedos. (just like normal units in WITP but here since they were configured for torps they could not instantly subsitute bombs for strike missions at extended range or when supply not present in proper amounts)

[pasternakski]

Well, I wouldn't want to suggest that this discussion is wrong-headed, but I suggest that this discussion is wrong-headed.

The problem is not that the game allows too many torpedoes to be available to G4Ms and G3As and T-IVas and V-IXs and ...

The problem is that the game allows too many of the blasted things to attack too often. It's the same problem that has been identified with the numbers of Allied heavy bombers, sizes of CAP, numbers of escorting fighters, you name it.

Still, it looks like we will all have to live with it. I don't believe that the game system will be yanked open and major changes made to the basic mechanics applicable to air strikes, no matter how compelling the argument is that insists on it.

So game on, Garth.

[juliet7bravo]

I haven't seen anyone post suggesting that "torpedoes are the problem", we've been discussing ways of improving the game.

Obviously though, since a historical use or distribution of torps would apparently cause the end of the world as we know it...there is a problem.

"since it is never "operator error" it must be "too many torpedos" "too much supply" "too much shipping" "A6M2 bonus" or what not"

Here's an example;

"I want it understood why I don't like some proffered changes. It is because such changes relieve one player or the other of the requirement to achive results through combat success. If we eliminate torpedos we eliminate the need for Allied player to fight for air control. (He now can simply ignore CAP send in supply and engineers build PM to max size and reduce Rabaul to rubble with 4E bombers)"

Okay, so you're "for" a totally ahistorical use of torpedoes because histroical use would screw up game balance (otherwise known as "the status quo"). Or at least that's how I read it. Okay, if a historical use of torps will screw up game balance...then obviously there's other underlying factors. No?

(1) "If we eliminate torpedos we eliminate the need for Allied player to fight for air control"

I haven't seen anyone suggesting "eliminating torpedoes". Historically, with historical use of torps...the Allied player had to fight for air control and wasn't doing so hot. So that means there's a problem somewhere else if a historical use of torps "eliminates the need for the Allied plyer to fight for air control". What is it?

(2) "He now can simply ignore CAP send in supply and engineers build PM to max size"

How can you ignore CAP just by toning down the use of torps? Could it be that since torps are generally far more effective ship killers, the IJN player is getting "more bang for his buck" with indescriminate/unrestricted use of torps? Maybe Allied ships are undervalued if the Allied player could "afford" to ignore CAP and get the snot bombed out of them? Or he just plain has too many ships available to use for support of military ops?

Okay, historically, did they have the engineering support to snap their fingers and build PM to max size? The answer is NO. Could it be that it's TOO FRIGGING EASY to build PM to max size given the state of the military engineering art in early 1942? To low a supply cost? To much engineering support available? To many Allied aircraft units available? To low an OP Loss rate? To high an AC servicability rate? To high a sortie regeneration rate? Most of the preceeding because airfield size doesn't mean jack and there's no terrain values? TO MUCH of everything, from supplies to replacements?

(3) "reduce Rabaul to rubble with 4E bombers"

Did this happen historically (in 1942)? Could it have? The answer is NO. Why could it happen in-game with a historical use of torpedoes? Could it be for all of the answers listed under #2? With the addition of TOO MANY B-17's IN THE GAME IN 1942?

Just about all of this are things that have been commented upon for years. Which all lead back to "Too Fast, Too Furious".

(4) CAP / Escort levels. Okay, it's NICE you've got it down to a formula. But I've seen nothing historically to show that there was any formula to it. Could the game being reduced to simple to understand one-size-fits-all FORMULAS be a problem? Is CAP too effective, too much of the time? Why don't the bombers abort when intercepted, instead of lining up for the inevitable slaughter? Flip side, how do the bombers KNOW there's going to be 2-1 odds over the target and decide to stay home?

For that matter, historically, if it wasn't for the Battle of the Coral Sea, PM likely WOULD have been captured. Why isn't it, if there isn't other gameplay issues? The Allies were throwing everything they had into it...how do they find the resources to save it in-game? Especially when the IJN player knows about GC coming straight at him? What's up with that?

Me (and most other people here I believe) have been talking about "across the board" changes which would effect players equally. If anything, a historic use of torps would HURT the Allies early war, as the shortage did historically. Again, I'll make it clear I'm talking about ways of improvement for WitP2 or an upgrade package.

err...what pasternaski said...

[mogami]

Hi, CA Chicago was hit by torpedo at night by ac launched from size 4 airifield. Lexington CV-16 was hit by torpedo at night launched from size 4 airfield. McCawlay (flag ship of invasion TF ) was hit and sunk by torpedo launched from aircraft.

[mogami]

Hi, Exactly how many sorties armed with torpedos should players be allowed to make?

[ChezDaJez]

Point being (if there's a point, I forget), bigger bases are going to have "bigger" infrastructure. More of it. Better. The Japanese in particular had little motor transport, and minimal port facilities at anything other than major bases.

Maybe I didn't make the point clear enough. Your argument that it is all about infrastructure doesn't wash.

The point is a Betty can load torps anywhere a land-based Kate can. The same with a Beaufort and an Avenger. There is no difference in the facilities or ground equipment required. So infrastructure doesn't matter one bit. Torps are torps. Load a torp on a Kate, you should be able to load a torp on a Betty.

A B-17 loading 1000lbers requires the same equipment a B-25 loading 500lbers does. Again no difference in infrastructure.

So basically airbase size boils down to runway length, not infrastructure. The question is can a loaded B-17 or Betty takeoff from that airfield? The weapons themselves don't matter. The infrastructure doesn't matter. Its the length of the runway and how much parking area there is.


And BTW, Japanese torpedoes were shipped in 3 parts; the propulsion unit, the warhead and a prop. The only prep was to uncage the gyros, remove the protective blocks on the rudder and stern planes, install a prop and a warhead and fuel it. Conduct a systems inspection and load it up. Good to go.

Chez

[mogami]

Hi, every issue with WITP does not have to evolve into a battle of personalities.

If the torpedo is used to often in WITp it is a simple issue to resolve once accurate numbers are provided.
Just how many times did allied ship get into range of japanese airfield and not get attacked by torpedo loaded aircraft? (when airfield was not closed before allied ships entered range?)

[juliet7bravo]

"Hi, CA Chicago was hit by torpedo at night by ac launched from size 4 airifield. Lexington CV-16 was hit by torpedo at night launched from size 4 airfield. McCawlay (flag ship of invasion TF ) was hit and sunk by torpedo launched from aircraft"

You're absolutely correct. Torps should be available anywhere, and in any numbers.

[juliet7bravo]

"Hi, Exactly how many sorties armed with torpedos should players be allowed to make?"

As many as they possibly can.

[juliet7bravo]

"Maybe I didn't make the point clear enough. Your argument that it is all about infrastructure doesn't wash."

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

The point is a Betty can load torps anywhere a land-based Kate can. The same with a Beaufort and an Avenger. There is no difference in the facilities or ground equipment required. So infrastructure doesn't matter one bit. Torps are torps. Load a torp on a Kate, you should be able to load a torp on a Betty.

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

"A B-17 loading 1000lbers requires the same equipment a B-25 loading 500lbers does. Again no difference in infrastructure"

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

"So basically airbase size boils down to runway length, not infrastructure. The question is can a loaded B-17 or Betty takeoff from that airfield? The weapons themselves don't matter. The infrastructure doesn't matter. Its the length of the runway and how much parking area there is"

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

"And BTW, Japanese torpedoes were shipped in 3 parts; the propulsion unit, the warhead and a prop. The only prep was to uncage the gyros, remove the protective blocks on the rudder and stern planes, install a prop and a warhead and fuel it. Conduct a systems inspection and load it up. Good to go."

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

[Speedysteve]

[juliet7bravo]

"Hi, every issue with WITP does not have to evolve into a battle of personalities"

You're absolutely, 100% correct.

"If the torpedo is used to often in WITp it is a simple issue to resolve once accurate numbers are provided"

Pick a number, any number

"Just how many times did allied ship get into range of japanese airfield and not get attacked by torpedo loaded aircraft? (when airfield was not closed before allied ships entered range?)"

Look Rocky, watch me pull a number of my ass!

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Mogami


In order to launch a torpedo strike the Japanese must have
1. A size 4 or larger airfield
2. A Air HQ
3. 2x required supply
4. 1 escort for every 2 CAP over target.

I'm not so sure here..

In a game I did vs AI, I was Japanese. I captured Midway Is. by Dec 27th. I quickly Flew in about 30-40 G3Ms and G4Ms and about 27 A6Ms.

By Jan 1, the US Navy was launching CV strikes at Midway. My planes launched and torpedoed the Enterprise - Torpedoed that is.
I had no Air HQ there on Midway....

B

Hi, If you didn't have an Air HQ you were not flying 100 percent of your aircraft.

Hi, I'm sure you are correct that 100% of the aircraft did not fly...I was merely trying to illustrate that so long as you have a level 4 airfield that is adequately supplied - you will have torpedo strikes available automatically.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Exactly how many sorties armed with torpedoes should players be allowed to make?

I don't see it as an issue of how many strikes we should allow. I see it as an issue of automatic availability.

If the Allies automatically got to arm level bombers with 1000lb AP bombs under the same conditions, we would probably see that as an unrealistic availability of such bombs.

But the allies must go through checks and die rolls to get their equivalent anti-ship weapon. No one says that the allies should only get X amount of sorties per game - just that they don't automatically get 1000lbrs at proper level well supplied bases....and that seems to work out acceptably.

To me, I just see it as a similar situation with torpedoes for land based level bombers.

[AmiralLaurent]

For me the problem is more general than Betties or Beauforts. It is the fact that the facilities available in a given base are only depending of the size of the airfield/port.

IMOO, the size of a port should only indicate the number of ships that may be unloaded/loaded, the size of an airfield the length of a runway and the size of the dispersal and so on.

While the service level of both should be different, meaning that you noy only have a long runway but also a torpedo shop, a repair shop, a meteo station and so on...

But that is another model...

As for having too much torpedoes in WITP, I fully agree (for Betties/Nells and for Beauforts). But the problem is that bombs are useless against most naval targets. In WITP Allied transports will survive being hit by a dozen bombs, while in RL one was sometimes sufficient to sink them. As most as torpedoes are too often used, my opinion is that bombs are not efficient enough, there are tens of example of ships sunk by one or two bombs. The only way to sink something with bombs in WITP is to score a dozen of hits, something that is possible because the number of AC on the frontline is far greater than in RL.

So IMOO power of bombs should be increased against soft armor targets. And use of torpedoes should be limitated to bases with Navy Base Forces at 100% of OOB (so you will have to march them or ship them where you want to use them). So Betties will fly with bombs from IJA bases, or from forward bases where air support had been brought by air. When the whole Navy base force is in place, torpedoes become available (if the base is level 4 or greater). As someone

That will reduce mostly the torpedo use in the first months of the war.

By the way, the Swordish and Vildebeests based in Singapore never used torpedoes, but attacked Japanese ships with bombs. And I don't remember that Beauforts used torpedoes in the Pacific or the Indian Ocean (at least there they were ready to do so, but Japanese never came).

Another solution is to create a new device, "torpedo shop", roughly of the size of a radar or bigger. Each able torpedo shop will be able to load each turn 30 AC, or 10 PT, or 3 SS.