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

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"No more of this from the hip "I wanna" crap"

You mean like "votes" and "polls"? Determining game mechanics via popular demand?

Polls are fine, as long as all related issues are dealt with evenly (along real life parameters, not some fantasy game balancing vein) and with the same approach so that some sort of design cohesion is established. Having almost every issue dealt with in a seperate manner has proven to basically stink as in the end all we are left with are contradictions.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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?

Charles, those two instances had different circumstances. The first was a situation where the planes were based on a different island than were the torpedoes. The daitai was unable to fly over to the island base that had the torpedoes because that base had just been heavily bombed by US carrier aircraft. The second instance was a case where Rabaul had yet to receive any torpedoes, so the Betties had to launch against the US carriers with bombs.

To further explore the situation, if you were to read the other thread in which we recently discussed this situation, you will note that someone here (sorry, I'm forgetting who) investigated and found that not one single ship was ever torpedoed at Port Moresby at any time during the war. Port Moresby was definitely within torpedo carrying Betty range of Rabaul, and yet the Japanese never used their torpedoes in their attacks on shipping at Port Moresby. I do not know why, but I rather doubt that it was because of stupidity (what some are claiming about those who lose to many ships to torpedoes).

Since torpedoes were not always used in strikes on shipping, and in WITP we do not have torpedo ammunition tracking (which I would love to see), my preference is to make it a die roll similar to the one for 1000lb bombs. It means that some attacks will have torpedoes and some will not, just like what happened in the real war.

[Ron Saueracker]

And gut the ability of any torp armed plane blowing all hell out of ships in port. Ahhhh, if we are going to add this amazing stretch of reality in every instance, at least give the player the ability to deploy port anti torpedo defences (net defences). I remember asking for one example of a port attack in the pacific by 2E bombers armed with torps and nobody could or will come up with more than one (the one was not really a port at all, just an anchorage). But it got rammed in there all the same. [8|]

[Brady]

Torpedo base/depot-I sugested this before as well, would be a semingly simple way to do it, but the rub lie's in part on how do you model it so it is historical and fair. It still seams simpler to model the Torps as an item of suply and have to move them.

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

"Where were all these torps "sinking ships like crazy" coming from? "

Port Morsby.

I too gave away ships in our game, I could aford to though, I sacraficed a lot of AK's to keep Tarawa fed in that game, and it was the right choice, jut because we each felt at different times it was important to sacrife ships for the greater good does not mean the game neads tweaking, we might though[:)]

I think that the Japanese getting a high K/D ratio in 43 is some kind of aboration, and the product of some crazy game, my experance has shown the Japanese lossing at a tremendious rate in the air in 43, again look at the AAR for Mog and Me, he lost the game in 43 largely because of the A to A war their.

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

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

In this game, the only butchering of ships around New Gunie, was done by allied torp planes and the ships sunk were Japanese....

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

And gut the ability of any torp armed plane blowing all hell out of ships in port. Ahhhh, if we are going to add this amazing stretch of reality in every instance, at least give the player the ability to deploy port anti torpedo defences (net defences). I remember asking for one example of a port attack in the pacific by 2E bombers armed with torps and nobody could or will come up with more than one (the one was not really a port at all, just an anchorage). But it got rammed in there all the same. [8|]

I assume you are referring to the Betty attacks off Guadacanal (anchorage) but Beauforts also conducted some of their thirteen torpedo attacks on ships in Rabaul Harbour. That's at least two.

[ChezDaJez]

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.

Hi J7B,

Not to quibble but neither the Nell or Betty can fly 1500 miles with a torp or even a bomb.

The range on the Betty is 15 hexes with torp or normal bomb load (900 miles) or 20 hexes (1200 miles) with a reduced bomb load. The Nell's normal range is the same as the Betty's but its 21 hexes at extended range (1260 miles).

Chez

[Brady]

Lars was kind enough to post this on another thread for me:

.................................................................................
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, "Japanese Naval Ordnance":

AERIAL TORPEDOES:

"Production expanded from 1,800 in 1943 to 4,000 in 1944. A peak output of about 370 was maintained from September to December 1944, but fell off each month thereafter to reach 180 in July 1945. None was made in August. The most important factors contributing to this decline were shortage of skilled labour, and absenteeism resulting from urban area raids. It was reported tat many torpedoes were rejected because of failure to meet specifications."

Indices of output (1941 monthly average = 100):

1941 - Actual = 100 ; Plan = 89
1942 - Actual = 202 ; Plan = 213
1943 - Actual = 304 ; Plan = 351
1944 - Actual = 653 ; Plan = 888
1945 - Actual = 250 ; Plan = 610

Maybe of some help.

Regards,

Lars
.......................

Thats a lot of freaking torps man..............

[bradfordkay]

Okay, Brady, now document how many attacks were made on shipping in the pacific theatre using torpedoes. Either side... Compare that to the number of aerial attacks made on shipping. DO you believe that every attack made on shipping by torpedo capable aircraft should be with torpedoes?

[Brady]

"DO you believe that every attack made on shipping by torpedo capable aircraft should be with torpedoes? "

God no, and I said so above, someplace, I would like to be able to chuse wheater or not my Bombers carried Torps. Largely because my precious Aircrews (espichaly my Japanese ones, they being the hardest to replace) suffer such hurendious loss rates cunducting torp atacks aganst Naval targets during the day, presently the realy only viable time of atacking them.

Perfect set up imo would be For a switch," Torpedo Atack ", if their were enough torps at a base then the number their would alow an equile number of planes to sortie with torps (in certain instances Mavis, Emily, PBY, two would be required for each plane). If this were not selected or part of the flight could not use torps the remainder would use The larger Naval AP ordance, for the Japnese this would mean the 800 KG type, extended range the 500 KG type, if the targets were "Naval" if they were Merchants then 250 kg or 60 kg bombs. Allied types would use what ever was the most common type fielded aganst ships for their time and place and type of atack, Beauforts typicaly used 250 KG bombs I belave, TBM's 500 or 1000 pounders...

In the end this would realy help preserve Aircrew and cut down on atration, I realy hate sending my Betty's/nell's aganst Cap and Flack on torps runs because they suffer such high atration rates. Frankely having to use torps is a doubled edged sword, and if I could chuse I would rather not a lot of the time.

In the same vein, Army bombers should use imo the largest types posable automaticaly agnst Naval targets, this is in keeping with Japanese doctern at the time, the 500 KG bomb type for the Army planes realy should be in the data base.


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

To get totaly anal, I would love to see a selection of all bomb types for each plane in the game listed.

A Bety might have as an Example the following switches:

60 KG
250 KG
500 KG
800 KG
Torpedo

A Ki-21:

50 KG
100 KG
250 KG
500 KG


The trade of aganst ships is that the smaller bomsb would yeild high hit ratios and lesser efects, the smaller bombs also would still be efective aganst AK/AP's and un armored ships like PG's MSW's and DD's, Even the Flight decks of US CV's could be holed by the smaller bombs.

A lot of the comparasions have already been posted above to paint a reasionable picture.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Brady]

Thats why I would like to see them an item we nead to move around (torps), BTW they did have training torps, recoverable ones I mean. The figures above also dont include stocks on hand from priour to 1941 either.

...........

"the 500 KG bomb type for the Army planes realy should be in the data base"

It's not? You're kidding...

No I am serious, it is not, in fact they use Navy boms the Army planes I mean, tomarow I will scan some Army bombs. Ever notice how their is no 50 KG bomb for the japanese Army planes.

[bradfordkay]

Okay, Brady, I will agree with that last post of yours. In a new version of WITP (for which I am not holding my breath) your suggestion is a viable one. For the present game, what would you suggest?

EDIT:I will agree with your previous post - we were writing at the same time (of course, if you take the time to correct typos, it takes longer! [:'(])

[Mike Scholl]

A question that has puzzelled me. " Count and track torpedos (including training)" Just how much "training" does a torpedo need before it's allowed to swim in the ocean?

[tsimmonds]

Thats a lot of freaking torps man..............

No, really it isn't. 1800 in 1943?? It may seem like a lot over the course of the war, particularly in 1944, but it was not a lot during the period when they were actually useful, i.e. through mid-1943. Think about it: use half of them for training. Then keep half of what's left in reserve. Divide what's left among a half-dozen different bases so you always have some available where you might need them. What does that leave you in one spot when enemy ships show up?