Torpedos usage

[KDonovan]

after reading Shattered Sword, i was amazed to learn that the Akagi only carried 36 torpedos. Then i recalled discussion on the WITP forum about the over abundance of torpedos in this game, especailly for the Japanese side. So this got me thinking of how such precious, limited, sophisticated weapons could be modded in the game without code changes.

For the allies, i seem to recall that Nik came up for a solution for the over abudance of Beauforts using torpedos, by basically making the "Beufort I" the torpedo carrying version with limited production numbers, and making the more abdundant "Beufort XIV" a bomber only. Problem solved

Warships and Subs are already well modded in regards to torpedo reloading as they require support ships or level 9 ports..so there is no problem there

Carrier borne torpedo aircraft seem to have no restriction other than the max sortie rate to limi their torpedo usage, so it looks like we are stuck with that situation.

Now in regards to the Bettys/Nells, i would gather that there is probably alot of anger out there due to the seemily unendless supply of torpedos these planes can deliver. Unfortunately since the japanese have control over there production, you can just do a quick fix ,a la Nik, and make 2 versions of Bettys...one a torpedo version and one a bomber versions, as players will just opt to maximize production the torpedo version. However, what if you were to make a mod that included 2 versions of Bettys (1 torpedo, 1 bomber) but make it so that the bomber Bettys would be less expensive for the japanese to produce. For instance, maybe assign 4 or 6 engines for the production of 1 torpedo Betty, and the normal 2 engines for the production of 1 bomber betty. for those people out there familar with japanese production would this be a fair deal? or am i just in fantasy land?

[ChezDaJez]

The best way to fix this is to make torpedoes a produceable item or install a toggle to allow choosing which loadout is desired.

The problem with making two variants of the Betty is that the Japanese player can choose to build just one version. If he chooses the torpedo version, you're right back to the original problem. The other problem is that it would also remove many Betty units from a ground attack role.

And what do you do about the Nells? and Kates and later torp aircraft?

The best fix is the hardest but its also the most sensible.

Chez

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

after reading Shattered Sword, i was amazed to learn that the Akagi only carried 36 torpedos. Then i recalled discussion on the WITP forum about the over abundance of torpedos in this game, especailly for the Japanese side. So this got me thinking of how such precious, limited, sophisticated weapons could be modded in the game without code changes.

For the allies, i seem to recall that Nik came up for a solution for the over abudance of Beauforts using torpedos, by basically making the "Beufort I" the torpedo carrying version with limited production numbers, and making the more abdundant "Beufort XIV" a bomber only. Problem solved

Warships and Subs are already well modded in regards to torpedo reloading as they require support ships or level 9 ports..so there is no problem there

Carrier borne torpedo aircraft seem to have no restriction other than the max sortie rate to limi their torpedo usage, so it looks like we are stuck with that situation.

Now in regards to the Bettys/Nells, i would gather that there is probably alot of anger out there due to the seemily unendless supply of torpedos these planes can deliver. Unfortunately since the japanese have control over there production, you can just do a quick fix ,a la Nik, and make 2 versions of Bettys...one a torpedo version and one a bomber versions, as players will just opt to maximize production the torpedo version. However, what if you were to make a mod that included 2 versions of Bettys (1 torpedo, 1 bomber) but make it so that the bomber Bettys would be less expensive for the japanese to produce. For instance, maybe assign 4 or 6 engines for the production of 1 torpedo Betty, and the normal 2 engines for the production of 1 bomber betty. for those people out there familar with japanese production would this be a fair deal? or am i just in fantasy land?

You´re correct, there are far too many torps available. If PBEM, make up a house rule if wanted. Level 5 or 6 for Betties and Nells. But to be honest, as long as an Allied opponent uses B17, B24 and perhaps even B29 out of level 4 fields..... If B17 and B24 do naval attacks I wouldn´t agree on such a house rule. You can just come up with the old Allied fanboy statement: the B17 and B24 wasn´t often used for naval attack (and never achieved the 30-50% hit rate that´s in the game) but those planes were able to do naval attacks. So the Betties and Nells were used for naval attack (and never achieved the hit rate that´s in the game) but those planes were able to carry torpedoes.

It´s a never ending story I think. The more I think about the decisions made by the developers the more I agree with them. [:(]

[herwin]

The B17 was intended for use in defense against naval forces. The fact that it had such an abysmal anti-shipping hit probability from altitude (about 3%) affected how it was actually used.

The G3M and G4M were good for about 20-25% hit probability with torpedoes early in the war.

[DD696]

In my heavily modded CHS 2.07 scenerio I am attempting to lessen the effects of these super torpedo carrying aircraft by setting the dud rate at 50% for Beauforts and Betties/Nells. I have always found them to be far to effective and need to be toned down considerably. However, due to the changes being made in the base CHS I have not been able to get far enuf into any one game to get a feel for the effects of this before I have to do a restart due to the non-ability to edit a game in progress.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: DD696

In my heavily modded CHS 2.07 scenerio I am attempting to lessen the effects of these super torpedo carrying aircraft by setting the dud rate at 50% for Beauforts and Betties/Nells. I have always found them to be far to effective and need to be toned down considerably. However, due to the changes being made in the base CHS I have not been able to get far enuf into any one game to get a feel for the effects of this before I have to do a restart due to the non-ability to edit a game in progress.

You could also increase the aircraft load value, which in turn would limit the number of airfield from which TB's could lauch torp attacks.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: timtom
You could also increase the aircraft load value, which in turn would limit the number of airfield from which TB's could lauch torp attacks.

That would be terrible solution IMHO. IJN 2E aircraft already need level 4 airbase to launch torpedo attacks which, given the abysmal Japanese engineering capabilities, is restricting enough.

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

Modding trops to have high dud rates seems like usable "hack" to solve part of the problem. But as Castor said this problem is inseparable from the problem of Allied players using massive, unhistorically big, unhistorically precise naval 4E strikes with mammoth unhistoric bombloads. Since you can't control either problem without house rules, it seems we're stuck with what we have.

Oleg

[Feinder]

If they're "unendless" that would actually mean there is a limited number.
 
endless = infinate number
unending = infinate number
 
unendless = not an infinate number
 
Yes, I married an English teacher.
 
[:)]
-F-

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

If they're "unendless" that would actually mean there is a limited number.

endless = infinate number
unending = infinate number

unendless = not an infinate number

Yes, I married an English teacher.

[:)]
-F-

Then you'll probably get an infinite number of "I must improve my spelling" lines to copy. [;)]

[Feinder]

[:D]

"Feinder can not spell." Or is it, "Feinder cannot spell."

.
.
.

Bodhi!

You're back!(?)
-F-

[KDonovan]

But as Castor said this problem is inseparable from the problem of Allied players using massive, unhistorically big, unhistorically precise naval 4E strikes with mammoth unhistoric bombloads. Since you can't control either problem without house rules, it seems we're stuck with what we have.

the allied 4E problem (which there is one) seems to be easily solved with a number of common house rules is see on the forum such as
- no 4E naval attacks...just 2E bombers
- no 4E naval attacks below 15000 feet
- no upgrading 2E airframes to 4E
- reduction in production numbers in allied 4E (nik mod and CHS)
- no 4E operating out of level 4 airfields
- Stacking limits at base's

however unlike the Allies the Betty torpedo problem seems to have no clear house rule, so the allies just get hosed when 4E house rules are imposed on them and nothing is done about the Betty.

[Desertmole]

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

 
It was pretty much true of all carriers of the time, US included.  The problem is that torpedoes, unlike bombs, needed constant maintenance to keep them in operational order, so in addition to a magazine, there were torpedo workshops for maintenance.  Add to that, torpedo magazines took a lot more room than bomb magazines.
 
One of the reasons that Ranger was not deployed to the Pacific was that she was designed without torpedo facilities.  She was designed to carry only fighting and scouting squadrons.  Her small size and and other limited capabilities were the other reasons.
 
A good reference on this is Freedman's US Carriers Design.

[ChezDaJez]

"Feinder can not spell." Or is it, "Feinder cannot spell."

It's "Feinder can't spell." [:D][:D][:D]

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

Don't forget that the Akagi and Kaga were converted to carriers during the 1920s when torpedo carrying aircraft hadn't yet been developed to any degree. Also, the early carriers of most nations were designed for scouting roles, not for their offensive capabilities.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

however unlike the Allies the Betty torpedo problem seems to have no clear house rule, so the allies just get hosed when 4E house rules are imposed on them and nothing is done about the Betty.

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

The Japanese and allied players have NO CONTROL over what loadout planes use except where dictated by extended range. The overabundance of torpedoes applies to every torpedo carrying aircraft including Swordfish, Beauforts, Kates, Avengers, Devastators, Jills, and Nells, not just Bettys.

Most of us agree that torpedoes are too abundant but until the game design is changed to limit them, there just isn't anything that can be done realistically because it applies to every torpedo carrying plane of every nation.

Chez

[spence]

The G3M and G4M were good for about 20-25% hit probability with torpedoes early in the war

Very early - like the very first attack they made against Repulse and PoW. And those were groups that had been specifically selected and trained to attack those ships (in a previous thread though one of the more ardent IJN torpedo advocates (Brady?) mentioned that the IJN had to fly in (some of) the actual torpedoes for the attack on the day it took place? Now there's a rather amazing bit of lack of logistical foresight).

After that first attack the Betty/Nell combos never achieved anything approaching the stated rate.

Other than the original 6 KB carriers did any of the other IJN carriers even launch a torpedo attack at all prior to Santa Cruz (Junyo did then I think). I know that Ryujo never launched a torpedo attack in its entire career. Same with Hosho and the CVEs. Shoho never got a chance. Zuiho might have launched some TBs at Philippine Sea but pretty sure she didn't before that.

[Feinder]

While I would like to see fewer torps in game, you'd have to significantly up the lethality of bombs if you reduced the number of torps.  Bombs are greatly under-represented in their ability to sink something, simply because they don't usually do much float damage.  Fire and Sys, sure.  But a ship can putter across the Pacific with 99 sys damage.  For a capital ship especially, you are amost required to hit it with a torp or two.
 
-F-

[tabpub]

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

How about no naval strike missions for that type airframe except from level 6 AF or a base where a "designated Naval Base Force" non-fragment is operating; where the IJN has say 2 of these base units. Cuts down on the "Kuching-Jolo-Kendari-Amboina" line of death in the early war and stresses the importance of major bases/special circumstances for these types of units.

Same can be said for 4E stuff; only naval/af/port attacks from lvl 6 or where there is a command or AF HQ of the same "assignment". Pay the cost in PP to switch to ABDA if you want your 7th BG there, otherwise send it on to SEAC where it's assigned.

[KDonovan]

And just what house rule could you incorporate for the Betty?

The Japanese and allied players have NO CONTROL over what loadout planes use except where dictated by extended range. The overabundance of torpedoes applies to every torpedo carrying aircraft including Swordfish, Beauforts, Kates, Avengers, Devastators, Jills, and Nells, not just Bettys.

as i stated before in my 1st post, theres nothing that can be done about the TB planes (Kates, Swordfish, TBF, etc). But these planes usually get slaughtered by AA and CAP, and plus there is a max sortie rule for those planes located on CVs, so i don't think theres as much of a problem dealing with these planes.

That leaves us with Beauforts/Betties/Nells. Now as i stated before the Beurforts can easily be limited in there torpedo carrying role by separating the 2 Beaufort models into a torpedo carrying model and bomber model, with the former in less production. This has already been done in Niks mod. In dealing with the Betty/Nell torpedo problem, i really couldn't think of any house rule to limited there use (like Tabpud did) therefore i came up with a similar "2 model approach" like the Beauforts. However then i realized players would probably only produced the torpedo carrying model. Therefore i figured if you made the torpedo carrying model expensive to make (as torpedos were) by requiring lets say 6 engines to produce a torpedo carrying betty/nell, then players may not be able to produce as many of that model. Which may produce a more historical usage of torpedos

[Oleg Mastruko]

I agree that torpedos are overabundant though, but I also wonder what COMPLETE IDIOT designed historic IJN CVs to carry 40-50 torpedos (I think 36 for Akagi is not the correct number, but it wasn't more than 50 in any case).

It was pretty much true of all carriers of the time, US included. 

True, but USN relied on torpedo bombers much less than IJN. IJN CV torpedo-loads were enough for less than TWO full torpedo strikes against enemy with early war large torpedo daitais (assuming all B5Ns survived the first strike which is unlikely). Val's 250 kg bomb is a joke vs BB. It's yet another case of "what the **** were they thinking?".

Don't forget that the Akagi and Kaga were converted to carriers during the 1920s when torpedo carrying aircraft hadn't yet been developed to any degree.

Modern IJN carriers were no better. Kojinsha gives number of only 45 Type 91 torpedos in Shokaku class storage! (Plus 60x800kg bombs, 60x500kg bombs - we don't see those in the game - 312x250kg bombs, 528x60kg bombs, and 48x30kg bombs) These numbers seem very precise and definitive.

Unryu class - 36 torpedos.

Taiho - 45.

For a navy where everything revolved around superior torpedo skillz and technology both on surface and in the air (unlike USN) that's just laughable.

So yes, knowing all this in game terms I do feel kinda bad when my IJN CVs launch their billionth torpedo strike in the course of 3-4 days on open sea, but I rationalize it, plus, any bad feeling I might have had goes away as soon as my USN PBEM opponent sends his 300 B17s on naval strike or equally unrealistic airfield Oscar/Nate massacre mission [:D]

I accept the game as it is, and no mod I've seen deals with these issues in satisfying manner (for me).

I think:
- Bombs (800kg and 500kg) should be used more often (by Kates), be more precise if dropped by skilled CV trained dudes, and produce *lot* more damage (one shot kill with 800kg monster should not be so rare especially on smaller ships)

- Torpedos, if used realistically rarely, should also be one hit - one kill weapons on anything smaller than CA (in most cases). Having AKs absorb 3-4 aerial or submarine torpedos before dying is just insane (it helps mitigate torpedo abundance somewhat, though)

- Huge restrictions should be placed on Allied 4E bombers in many cases, but I doubt we'll ever see this...

Having said this, I can live with the game such as it is, adapt, rationalize and overcome [;)]

Oleg