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

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
Which is why all changes (and WitP 2 game mechanics) should be carefully thought out. Unfortunately, what I see in alot of the game mechanics is that people decided the results they WANTED, then came up with the way to get them. Then went "aw sh!t" and tweaked capabilities someplace else to counterbalance it. Setting up an entire cascade of unintended side-effects.

How come (a) I was never able to say this so clearly, and (b) whenever I attempt to say it, I get steamrollered by a bunch of total booger-eating unprepared morons?

Really, how do you "balance" a game where one side is a bunch of total booger-eating unprepared morons who get steam-rollered?

That's what my twin brother Clem and his other twin brother Clem here want to know before they set out to defend the SRA.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

....

Really, how do you "balance" a game where one side is a bunch of total booger-eating unprepared morons who get steam-rollered?

That's what my twin brother Clem and his other twin brother Clem here want to know before they set out to defend the SRA.

For some reason, that hit me as the funniest thing I've seen in ages!![:D][:D]
I had to leave my desk at work I started laughing so hard!


I'm composed now..

[pasternakski]

In real life, these two were father and son (by the same mother).

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Then of course, there's the frustration of your planes waving at the ships of the invasion TF as they fly past, only to drop their bombs on the Battleships that can't be damaged anyways...

[;)]

-F-

So more or less we could address the target selection a little better. Why drop a dink (500 lb bomb) on a BB when you could hit all those slow AP's waiting to unload. What was doctrine of the time?

[:D]

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

In real life, these two were father and son (by the same mother).

Eeewwwwww.[X(]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: pasternakski



In real life, these two were father and son (by the same mother).

I really don't know how to properly understand the above sentence... [X(]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: spence

As I have said before, I am not against the IJN using torpedos from land bases...just against them always using them from practically anywhere, any time. That capability is unrealistic.

Well that's funny because we have seen at least one other person complain about the LBA version.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"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."


Brady, this is an absolute falsehood. In the other thread (the one which prompted Russ to post this poll) it was pointed out that on at least two occaisions (the early raids by US carriers against Japanese held islands and the one by Rabaul based Betties against US carriers before Coral Sea) the Japanese planes were launched without torpedoes because there were none available.

When you consider how few occaisions there were that Betties actually launched torpedoes, and compare those numbers to the occasions where they used bombs instead, then it is obvious that you are twisting the facts in that statement.

I'm sorry I'm commenting a bit late here, but even if what you say is true for *those* instances, you still don't have enough data. Any base can be out of any supply at any time. Was this statement meant to say that the entire empire didn't have torps? That there was a massive shortage? Or that IJ just wasn't too keen on storing torps for that immediate area, or just that those areas were torp-ignored during the whole war?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

A couple of pertinent snippets from an RAAF document:

AERIAL TORPEDOES – A WEAPON SYSTEM FAILURE

"This was the nineteenth—and last—operation undertaken by the RAAF torpedo strike force."

"The torpedo was technically complex, and required many man-hours to maintain. It was not a weapon that could be deployed effectively to the rudimentary airfields from which the RAAF operated in New Guinea. To help overcome this operational restriction, Mobile Torpedo Sections were raised to support squadrons in the field, and thereafter fought an ongoing battle to protect their sensitive charges from the insidious effects of tropical heat, mud, rain, and humidity."

That describes the RAAF, using USN torps. Obviously, anyone else would have similiar issues with torp maintenance.

Not necessarily, for I remember how the Brits didn't have dependable fuel containers which would routinely burst or leak in NAfrica (for tanks and such). They saw how much better the German "Gerry Can" worked and started making them like that. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities that GB would have inferior torps or inferior maintenance in this case. I know the Brit's had a much tougher time in the jungle in the first couple of years than the Japanese, and lack of optimum maintenance in adverse conditions could have been part of their problem.

[Charles2222]

juliet7bravo:

Reality;
- RAAF flew 19 torp missions in all of WW2 (in the Pacific), all using the USN Mk13.
- RAF...I'm sure they flew torps missions in the Pacific, but I've yet to come up with an example
- USAF/USAAC flew 1 torp mission in the Pacific
- Land-based USN/USMC TB's I've yet to find a single torp mission (other than Midway) in the Pacific. I'm sure they did, but obviously it wasn't an everyday affair.
- Few of the AC conducting torp missions in WitP every flew an actual torp mission. An example would be the RAAF Beaufighters. Major reasons being the USN torps were so crappy, and by the time (some of) the bugs were worked out there was better techniques/weapons for anti-shipping strikes than flying straight at the enemy, at stalling speed, 100' off the water.

When you said the above something else occurred to me. I believe Brady is correct in saying IJ players get the short end of the stick when torps are based on supply levels, but when an Allied player objects to seeing more toprs from IJ than he thinks was historical, he wants them reduced. This may happen accidentally with Allied types, but what usually happens when these sort of issues come up is that they cut torps across the board for air units. Guess who that favors, and rather strongly? The Allies. You said it yourself, they have lousy torps, so why would they care if their use were cut if they don't use them anyway?

Although one could always argue it wasn't fair, but another element of trying to adjust this problem, which of course likely means a WITP II or something, would be to make random loadouts. An earlier poster pointed out that if you has selectable ordinance, then the IJN player would just select torps for Betties anyway. Would be good for house rulings maybe but not much else. You could make the bombload dependant on perhaps the base size. Whatever you would base it on, you would have a random determiner. If base size for example, the larger base would have higher percentages of carrying torps, but not absolute. A smaller base would have a lower percentage, but not altogether impossible to have them at various times. You might also base some of the percentage on the intelligence as to the size of the targets and/or if the area was very important. Perhaps each player, for example, could select a couple of bases where it's really important to stock torps and the percentage would go up higher still for those bases. You get the general idea.

[Charles2222]

It also highlites the Nell/Betty torp issue. Is open ocean 1500 miles away an "IJ air-dominated area"? You can have a couple of merchant types stooging along in the really big ocean, and "ker-blammo" here comes the Betties with their torps like magic. Again, it's part of the balance issue. In this case also involving the ability to search all that empty ocean like an AWAC's and infallibly guide the air strike in.

Have you ever seen this actually happen in-game? Is 1500 miles meant to be an exaggeration, just a round number? I ask because the regular Betty range is 15, or 900 miles. I'm pretty sure it won't carry torps beyond that range. Even so, though my experience is very limited, to the early portions of the game, in the PI area I have on most turns a Betty with a range of 15 set to naval attack. I have not one time seen them attack shipping, torp or not. Every other unit flies out. I'm thinking it has something to do with more convenient units in the area and therefore they don't get called out. For instance, I send out 8 Jakes off an AV and they attack a couple of AK's perhaps. The ships don't sink in this example, but the Betties don't follow up that attack either. The Jakes are maybe 120 miles away, while the Betties are maybe 480 miles away.

The main reason I'm telling you that is because your description in no way comes anything close to describing that sort of situation. Your fear seems out of proportion to the reality of what I see the Betty doing in the sea. It's entirely possible that if the targets aren't more convenient for other planes to attack, they will, but you would think they would attack sighted shipping especially within just 480 miles. I have the same shipping sighted, without it disappearing [slow shipping] for more than one turn and the dummies still don't attack. In any event, I think you will have to admit that it's impossible for any aircraft to carry it's primary ordinance beyond it's normal range.

[Reg]

So I guess what we are after is torpedo strikes to be conducted
1. against capital ships or
2. against invasion forces (how would A.I. know??), and
3. from bases with torpedo support units (simulated by supply levels)

But what about PBY strikes and the Beaufort night raids on Rabaul Harbour. There may not be a perfect solution for this...

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

In real life, these two were father and son (by the same mother).

And I, for one, applaud you for NOT showing us a picture of the mother. [&o][:D]

[Brady]

I hate it when I am away from the board for a while when some realy good topic is at hand.

To start with their is something that I think posably has been over looked, that SPS...Stupid Player Syndrome, I must admit I have fell victom to this from time time, as an example in my Game with Mogami that has a AAR you can all go look at, I alowed my CV's to get withen like 8 hexes of his Bett's/Nell's and paid the price after getting gready with CV's who were rampaging through the Gilberts sinking Japanese ships left and right, I pushed it and I knew better but went for it and paid the price. In contrast Mogami in the same game (I am not implying he was stupid hear he had his own reasions for doing this) at Lae fed my Beauforts out of PM like 50 some odd AP and AK's ever turn for god nows how long They were flying Torp runs and sinking ships like crazey.

My point hear is obvious, while we may all do stupid things once in a while thats ok, as long as we learn from them, aknowledge that we screwed up, and realise it is not nescessarly some aboration of history and a seriously wrong designe concept that is behind it and we got owned by the game.

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

Now having said that:

I realy feal the only way around this Torp thing is to:

1) Make them a suply item.

2) Thier must be a factory to build them.

3) Allied torps most come from Karachi or the West Coast.

4) Thier must be a Switch for Torp plane types to alow them to select torps.


If we do not do this, and we opt for something else were going to creat more problems, right now it is buggered to be shure, allied 4E bombers are more of a menace to shiping than the Betty/Nell's are by far, for various reasions.

[Ron Saueracker]

Why not just have torpedo capability reliant on the presence of a torpedo depot at the base in question (built like fortifications, airfields, ports)? Size 1-10 or some such, and the size (in conjunction with supply) acts as a determing variable as to whether torps are loaded that turn...greater the size of the depot, greater the odds that torps are available to the AI base CO for a given strike.

[Ron Saueracker]

I have to agree with Juliet7Bravo regarding having a well developed approach to any corrections made to the design. No more of this from the hip "I wanna" crap. Perhaps make a master list of what is most wrong with the game, apply the same sort of design fix to every element so that they mesh well, and leave it at that.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why not just have torpedo capability reliant on the presence of a torpedo depot at the base in question (built like fortifications, airfields, ports)? Size 1-10 or some such, and the size (in conjunction with supply) acts as a determing variable as to whether torps are loaded that turn...greater the size of the depot, greater the odds that torps are available to the AI base CO for a given strike.

For Betty's the size of the airfield already plays a part. 2E bombers must have size 4 airfield or they fly normal range only with reduced bombload (aka no torps).

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: medicff

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why not just have torpedo capability reliant on the presence of a torpedo depot at the base in question (built like fortifications, airfields, ports)? Size 1-10 or some such, and the size (in conjunction with supply) acts as a determing variable as to whether torps are loaded that turn...greater the size of the depot, greater the odds that torps are available to the AI base CO for a given strike.

For Betty's the size of the airfield already plays a part. 2E bombers must have size 4 airfield or they fly normal range only with reduced bombload (aka no torps).

But obviously this is not enough given that any size one airfield can be made into a size 4, enough to allow torps. My point about the depot was to add more restrictions, supply requirements (to build up the depot) and add some variance to address the all or nothing availability of ordnance. Same could go for naval ordnance. At the very least increase the field size restrictions above 4 or reduce the ability to increase any field to oversize (instead of by three, perhaps by one).

Make transferring of aircraft much more difficult as well. In BoB, if one transfers a squadron, the planes are unavailable for at least a day or tweo, in this design, there is not even a time restriction that I can see, allowing cross the Pacific transfers and strikes by the same aircraft transferring the same day.