"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[Hard Sarge]

I would have to vote for one

the whole idea of this poll sounds dumb to me

any land base that wanted to or needed to, or had to, could hold a lot more Trops then any CV fleet ever could

(I would vote for 2, to show the effort needed to keep them in supply, if not for the other Supply hassles in the game)

[Brady]

I think Torpedoes should be tracked like a seperate suply item. You want them, pack them up and bring them along on a ship. This would be opening up a can of worms to be shure.

If this is not going to be done them, I would just leave this be as it presently is untill a more detailed aproach can be had to handel them a-la WiTP II>

Any type of Suply sujestion is realy just puting a pro allied slant on it, the Japanese prety much always had Torps available whear ever they based their Betty/Nel bombers. I dont personaly see a big problem in the game with them at present, the Beauforts seam a bit to plentifull and torp capable, but their short range is not that big a deal to work around imo.

[Akos Gergely]

Not necessarily Sarge. Torps were extremely heavy weapons and needed special care and attention to achive a good percentage of reliability on the weapons. So actually CVs usually had much better facilities for torp stowage and maintenance then some land bases.

Also why this question really has some points is that torpedo production was rather limited in number (especially for Japan) compared to bombs and usually smaller targets did not worth a torp at all in reality (while in WitP often MSW are attacked with them ... )

[Sonny]

Number 4 would be cool if the air bosses chose appropriate size strikes for their targets. Having a limited supply of torps be used up because 50 torpedo bombers were sent to strike a lone PC on ASW mission would lead to more howls than the current situation causes.[;)]

[Demosthenes]

Talk about fanboyism!

ORIGINAL: Brady


I think Torpedoes should be tracked like a seperate suply item. You want them, pack them up and bring them along on a ship. This would be opening up a can of worms to be shure.

If this is not going to be done them, I would just leave this be as it presently is untill a more detailed aproach can be had to handel them a-la WiTP II>

Any type of Suply sujestion is realy just puting a pro allied slant on it, the Japanese prety much always had Torps available whear ever they based their Betty/Nel bombers. I dont personaly see a big problem in the game with them at present, the Beauforts seam a bit to plentifull and torp capable, but their short range is not that big a deal to work around imo.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Not necessarily Sarge. Torps were extremely heavy weapons and needed special care and attention to achive a good percentage of reliability on the weapons. So actually CVs usually had much better facilities for torp stowage and maintenance then some land bases.

Also why this question really has some points is that torpedo production was rather limited in number (especially for Japan) compared to bombs and usually smaller targets did not worth a torp at all in reality (while in WitP often MSW are attacked with them ... )

Sorry, I may be missing something along the line

where do CV's get there Trops from ?

they don't have to sail all the way back to San Fran (if US) to reload there stocks ?

they are loaded from the land bases, that you guys seem to think, couldn't handle them ?

if we want to track all the 250/500/1000/2000 pound bombs and all the different MG Ammo, plus the Cannon Ammo, the sure, lets track how many Trops are on the base

I would agree to the Idea of a base amount of Supply being needed to say there is enough of a stock pile to use what you need, but that also has it's own drawbacks

maybe going to a base size limit before a base can fly Trop planes off of it would be better ?

[Mike Solli]

It's a relatively well-known picture. They're Bettys and most, if not all, were shot down. It was somewhere in the Solomons, I believe. Got the details in a book at home.

Edit: There are 4 Bettys in the pic.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I would have to vote for one

the whole idea of this poll sounds dumb to me

If it were truly dumb, it wouldn't be making any sounds at all.

I also voted for option #1, partly for reasons you have given, and partly because I don't want to see any more messing around with the code.

Right now, it ain't too badly broke. Let's not fix it. You never know what else is going to go haywire if you make changes of this kind. There's the danger that we'll be back in the "let's do a patch to repair what the last patch broke."

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Arkady

you can not force inland supplies movement between bases ...

Good thinking/catch!


Something like below would surely help (and I hope it wouldn't be too complicated to do)...


Setting Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource user selected MIN limits for bases

Right now in WitP we are at mercy of AI for internal distribution of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource.

What about giving user ability to set Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource MIN limits he/she wishes the base to posses (i.e. simple user selected box with number in thousands of tons for Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource)?

That way we would 100% sure avoid unnecessary automatic transfer of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource!


Leo "Apollo11"

[invernomuto]

I voted #2.

Hope #4 for WITP 2 or Expansion Pack.

[Demosthenes]

It's fascinating that everyone with a Japanese image in their avatar or signature (and a few others) seems very concerned about reducing Japanese LB torpedo availability, but no one seems the least bit concerned about Allied LB ALREADY being unable to ever be sure of getting their anti-ship ordinance.

It's so blatantly out of balance it's deafening - but 99% of the posters are tip-towing around the comparison.[:-]

[invernomuto]

[wrong post, sorry]

[Brady]

"least bit concerned about Allied LB ALREADY being unable to ever be sure of getting their anti-ship ordinance. "

I am not shure if your refering to Allied Torps?- If this is indead what your refering to then:

Suply)- If we jsut use suply to restrict torps, then so what the allies have so much they have no problem hear, their cup runith over. This is why I would like to see Toprs a comidity that neaded to be moved on its own. and for certain plane types not something dependant on base size, Floatpnaes/sea planes should not be restricted in terms of base size to operate their torps. Base size is realy just an abstracted maner in which they limit torps in game, any airfield that they could fly off in a Torp plane with a full load should be Torp capable realy, the Zise 4 is just a game mechanic.

Japan)If you limit the torps by Suply then Japan will get shafted, as presently Suply is a BIG problem for her a lot of the time, this will artificaly limit the options she had that were historicaly available to her to use torps.

Switch- it would be nice if we could chuse to NOT use Torps for a Naval atack sortie from those types espichaly equiped to use them, espichaly if we get to move torps as a comidity or seperate suply item.

............

Torp base Force? What about seperate Enginear units to provide Torp Suport?

.....................

If you were refering to the Allied Bomb "BS", 1000 pound and larger load out's option, BTW the single Bigest Pro Allied slant in game at present, well one of many but the bigest peave I have, the use of this in real life from the larger planes was so limited that I belave only one referance for it occuring was ever found. Yet in game it hapens all to easely and frequently. Adding this was bad enought to not do the same for Japanese planes was a bit much.

[NemRod]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Arkady

you can not force inland supplies movement between bases ...

Good thinking/catch!


Something like below would surely help (and I hope it wouldn't be too complicated to do)...


Setting Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource user selected MIN limits for bases

Right now in WitP we are at mercy of AI for internal distribution of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource.

What about giving user ability to set Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource MIN limits he/she wishes the base to posses (i.e. simple user selected box with number in thousands of tons for Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource)?

That way we would 100% sure avoid unnecessary automatic transfer of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource!


Leo "Apollo11"

Arkady's remark is exactly what I was trying to explain ( but may be I wasn't clear enough).
With your excellent idea, Leo,#2 becomes debatable but with the game as it is ("little change of code" says the poll) it simply can't work on 2/3 of the map!
A poll on your proposition ( min limit for base supply) would probably show 100% for "yes"!

[el cid again]

Since they could launch from 200 ft or so I wonder what advantage they hoped to gain so low. It would seem a tiny flinch on the stick and "that's all folks" for plane and pilot.


Protection form fighters and AAA (very difficult to target such low flying targets)!

It is a technical issue - if you drop from high up the torpedo enters the water vertically! If you drop from low and slow it enters the water at a much more shallow angle and is able to recover. Further, the direction you are flying matters - and it amounts to "aiming" the torpedo. Torpedos are a deadly weapon to a ship - and there is a related weapon (we don't talk about much) - the underwater rocket (it not being one of our toys).

[el cid again]

I recall the PH attack had quite a few stories of pilots lfying at tree-top level, which must had been some fighters. Is there any possibility that some of the AA guns couldn't train so low?

Large (heavy) AA guns in particular have a very difficult time slewing at a high rate and are not generally effective against very low fliers. The exception is if the low flier is on a constant bearing - decreasing range - which of course is easy for any gunner to deal with. Thus Takishi Hara and his engagement of the skip bomber with 5 inch 50s - guns that barely were able to move fast enough to be dual purpose at all.

[el cid again]

I agree, bomb should do a LOT more damage against targets, even armored ones, why not give torp planes a default load of 1000 LBS bombs if they do not pass the torpedo check ??...

Japan does not have a thousand pound bomb - although they do have a 1720 pound one it is a very special case.

However, in the game, the standard 551 pound (250 kg) bomb was rated in stock and CHS as if it were a 350 pound bomb. So while it is really bigger than an Allied 500 pound bomb, the game treated it like it was much smaller! You will like playing when these sorts of data tricks aren't in the game. Regular bombs will damage ships. I HATE the damage Allied 500 pound bombs do. Imagine how it will be if Japan has BIGGER bombs!

[el cid again]

Sorry, I may be missing something along the line

where do CV's get there Trops from ?

they don't have to sail all the way back to San Fran (if US) to reload there stocks ?

they are loaded from the land bases, that you guys seem to think, couldn't handle them ?

I already pointed out that torpedo bombers operate from tinly airbases called aircraft carriers - but no one cares. They want what they want - period. I have no problem tracking torpedoes by model - but it isn't an option here and I don't whine about it (well, not often - and then ONLY to complain I want a more complex logistic model - not to pick on one weapon).

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

It's fascinating that everyone with a Japanese image in their avatar or signature (and a few others) seems very concerned about reducing Japanese LB torpedo availability, but no one seems the least bit concerned about Allied LB ALREADY being unable to ever be sure of getting their anti-ship ordinance.

It's so blatantly out of balance it's deafening - but 99% of the posters are tip-towing around the comparison.[:-]

greetings...

What Brady said...

Honestly (i'm just probably dumb), i don't see any sense in supply requested formula for torpedo attacks. What would that change? Just one thing more to keep in mind in micromanagment... (i like micromanagment, but i don't want to be bored with "oh, i will invade Baker islands in x turn, i need to ship 20.000 supply more than is needed to Maloelap for my LBAs, etc, etc". )

So, players will send more supply in the bases (40.000 instead 10.000) - and we are going to have same results as we have now.

But the bottom line is what Brady said (really - there is nothing with fanboyism): Allies can always send enough supply (if i'm right there are few Allied bases with eternal flaw of supply?) - Japan not.

I'm for changes in this particular issue, but against this bad idea....

[Nikademus]

Brady is referring to the Japanese 500kg SAP/HE bomb.