The problem about when folks complain about PTs is

[Fishbed]

My impression is that on average PT boat performance is more-or-less realistic. But perhaps the performance is a little too random, resulting in skewed results in some games.

Maybe the question is to know HOW to use them to make the results look like realistic - size of TF, limitation of the number of TFs, etc... [:)]
This and the fact that, as PzB's experience show it, there are simply too many PTs, leading the Allied player using them (and losing them) at will while in real, Allied command was much more conservative because of the lack of units at their disposal (or the first batch of PTs at Tulagi would have been a little bigger than a mere *two* boats group...), not to mention the fact that having PTs in the area didn't always mean that any TF would get engaged, especially before they get fit with a radar (while in WitP, they will rarely miss a fight).
As Pauk and Andy mentionned it, the PI boats and the 1943 stuff don't have a lot in common anyway - the radar fitted ones are somewhat more dangerous, to say the least...

[Fishbed]

I'll add that one of the main complaints about the PTs is their power of disruption when facing an enemy force. They got treated as a combat round like any other, and most of the time the following bombardement by the IJN ships is just laughable because there's no time left for it.
There is nothing like the tense of having Henderson Field wiped out if you can manage to have only even half a dozen PTs waiting for any Jap TF there. 2x3 PTs, multiplying the combat round, will make a bombardement attempt fail as well as Scott and Callaghan did with a dozen cruisers and destroyers, and for a cheaper price... In the real word, you couldn't even be sure that the PTs would make contact with anything else that the outer outer outer screen against such a huge force, the big guys shouldn't even get concerned and disturbed in their mission while their escort is being engaged my pesky little pests!

They are a game-tension-killer to me, and when if I am to play allied in my first Pbem, no way I'll use them more, in a different way and for something other than historically. I don't want to feel like robbing the IJN player from victory [:-]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Big picture Pauk.

You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth.

What's over-all score card?

Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP?

-F-

If a single DD is sunk against 10-20 PT's, this seems acceptable. In WW I, the full name of the DD was actually "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"..The Destroyer was invented specifically to counter torpedo boats, (not other destroyers.)
The DD proved very versatile and their main guns later were given protective armor, and even later, armoured turrets.

IMHO, the PT's are not "over-powerful", and if a single DD is lost each turn for a week,(with losses of 5, 10, 15 PT's), this is still not proof of PT's being too powerful. While several DD's might be lost, PT boat attrition will eventually have an area cleared of PT's...
The fact DD production might be a limited commodity should not be a consideration for determining the PT effectiveness, but might make the owners of the DD's seek another (less costly) means to counter them??
The Japanese have scads of PC's,PG's, MSW's, etc....

[Fishbed]

The fact DD production might be a limited commodity should not be a consideration for determining the PT effectiveness, but might make the owners of the DD's seek another (less costly) means to counter them??
The Japanese have scads of PC's,PG's, MSW's, etc....

Yes sure, next time Pauk goes for Dobadura or Buna, he'd better send a uber-PG task force clear up the mess and wreak havoc the PT armada [:D] [;)]
Finding a totally akward solution to counter another akward situation doesn't sound good to me... [:(]

The PTs SHOULD be a limited commodity as much as Japanese DD are... [8D]

[bradfordkay]

I believe that PTs are a limited commodity, in that they are available only in historic numbers. Are you arguing that they should be ahistorically limited?

[Feinder]

The PTs SHOULD be a limited commodity as much as Japanese DD are

I'm not following you. PTs -ARE- a limited quanity. Frankly, I don't know how many there were in the Pacific, and I agree that only those that were actually in the pacific should be represented.

If you look in the editor. Each PT has a unite slot, and unique arrival date in the editor. According to the manual, the only ships that respawn are Barges and MSWs. PTs do not (unless a dev would like to confirm or deny this). They are not unlimited.

I'll finish up the "to date" list of the not-so-remarkable-but-are-somehow-still-considered-the-scourge-of-the-Pacific-menace-known-as-PTs list of battles tomorrow.

-F-

[Fishbed]

Well then maybe we should make the difference between their availability date in San Diego and their actual availability in the theater.

Maybe the arrival dates are the building or release date of the ships, but that most of the time there were not available in NG or the Solomons before 2 other months or so, while right now they can get generated way too freely... Anyway it can be simulated in game by generating the PTs far away and get them manually to their deployment location with a nurse AK. I think it should be a rule until late 1943 or 1944, and I'll play like that.

I believe that PTs are a limited commodity, in that they are available only in historic numbers. Are you arguing that they should be ahistorically limited?

I am arguing that if they are limited, they are not historically limited well yet then.

A topic like that
tm.asp?m=1170768&mpage=1&key=elco

dealt with the issues already.

Personally I don't care, as I said before, I will play with my own rules when I am allied, and I'll wait for my opponents to play the same way if ever I am to play Japanese. Things like the theater availability can be simulated in game. A check on the OOB should be done too, but Im pretty sure it was done before already, can't find the topic.

The only important issue next to this is the durability of the PTs (who can survive canon a little too much) and the power of their own guns (which may wreck havoc a Jap DD with 3 or 4 (too) lucky shots). But apart from that...
Maybe the capability of their radar may get a little tuned down too? (don't about that, if it can be done...?)

[bradfordkay]

There's also an issue with the durability of AKs and APs. Take a look at how many bombs those vessels can absorb in WITP. Like Feinder, I look at the overall feel of the game. I just don't see PTS as any more unbalancing than any other units in the game.

[aztez]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I just get tired of 10% of the people using 1% of the game to make 90% of the noise.

Look at "the other" thread. Is he willing to post EVERY PT action, win or lose? Doubt it. It's just here's 3 actions from one game, where PTs won, and suddenly the whole blanket of PTs is a menace that that destroys Japan. That thread -is- blatently a "JFB thread".

Unlike the "other thread", this one is pure objective evidence. I'm just posting the EVERY PT ACTION OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS.

You draw your own conclusions. If you still think PTs are over-powered when they show 25 PTs lost thus far, vs. 1x DD and and transport, that's your perrogative. It begs the question of what you would consider balanced? 100 PTs lost to 1x DD? What sort of evidence of this in-game or gawd forbid, historical evidence, can you offer?

-F-

Totally agree with you. I have 2 PBEM's heading into late 1944 and PT's are pretty much working as they should. Neither player nor me have complained about them.

Mostly they don't hit anything and these are just guarding some of the more minor bases.

There are far more important things that are off with Witp and PT boats aren't one of those issues.

[Andy Mac]

OK this is a bit rich I would not quote form PZB's game versus me for the use of PT Boats

Remember 2 things.

1. India is shut down depriving me of the RN which is a far more 'game breaking' iosue than PT Boats ever were

and

2. In 1943 I had almost no operational surface units almost no BB's and barely enought Cruisers to screen my CV TF's and was severely short of DD's - PT Boats were being used as quasi DDis in and around New Guine/New Britain because they were ALL I had and let us not forget PZB liked to bombard a LOT. No complaints but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So please dont use that game to support either side of this argument

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

My impression is that on average PT boat performance is more-or-less realistic. But perhaps the performance is a little too random, resulting in skewed results in some games.

Maybe the question is to know HOW to use them to make the results look like realistic - size of TF, limitation of the number of TFs, etc... [:)]
This and the fact that, as PzB's experience show it, there are simply too many PTs, leading the Allied player using them (and losing them) at will while in real, Allied command was much more conservative because of the lack of units at their disposal (or the first batch of PTs at Tulagi would have been a little bigger than a mere *two* boats group...), not to mention the fact that having PTs in the area didn't always mean that any TF would get engaged, especially before they get fit with a radar (while in WitP, they will rarely miss a fight).
As Pauk and Andy mentionned it, the PI boats and the 1943 stuff don't have a lot in common anyway - the radar fitted ones are somewhat more dangerous, to say the least...

[Andy Mac]

Hang on just a minute Jap DD's are NOT that powerfull.
 
Jap DD's are a huge danger to my CA's and BB's but those huge batteries of torpedoes which mke them the terror of the sea have no impact against PT Boats it isnt until late 43/44 that the Jap DD's have mostly got radar and enough auto weapons
 
Rightly of wrongly Jap DD's fall more into the category of Torpedo Boat and not Torpedo Boat Destroyer themselves.
 
2 or 3 Upgraded PT Boats are a real handfull for most Jap DD's and should win by playing the angles for the toprdo launches adn even one can ruin your day if it gets to close to 1000 feet
 
Only the best Jap DD's with radar, good AA and those good 5" DP guns are proper DD's the rest are themselved just glorified torpedo boats with no armour

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I just get tired of 10% of the people using 1% of the game to make 90% of the noise.

Look at "the other" thread. Is he willing to post EVERY PT action, win or lose? Doubt it. It's just here's 3 actions from one game, where PTs won, and suddenly the whole blanket of PTs is a menace that that destroys Japan. That thread -is- blatently a "JFB thread".

Unlike the "other thread", this one is pure objective evidence. I'm just posting the EVERY PT ACTION OVER THE COURSE OF 8 MONTHS.

You draw your own conclusions. If you still think PTs are over-powered when they show 25 PTs lost thus far, vs. 1x DD and and transport, that's your perrogative. It begs the question of what you would consider balanced? 100 PTs lost to 1x DD? What sort of evidence of this in-game or gawd forbid, historical evidence, can you offer?

-F-

Ha, you got tired....Sorry to say but you are showing arrogancy. You are the one who ignoring the truth and arguments. But why i'm surpised, you clearly stated that you just dont care for other opinions and arguments:

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Big picture Pauk.

You're guilty of focusing on what you don't like, and ignoring the simple truth.

What's over-all score card?

Something like 25 PTs sunk thus far, in exchange for a DD and an AP?

You and other persons ignoring the simple truth and questions. Posted question about PT radar efficiency and outcome of the Surigao strait battle - 39 PTs with radar, highly experienced crew vs japanese fleet. Twice - of course none of you responded to this question (in the other thread). Wouldn't that be ignoring the simple truth?

I'm willing to post all losses in my game:

date is 15th June 1943. Allied lost 104 PTs so far. 12 PTs (included in overall number) are sunk with figthers (i'm sure that quite a few PTs are first damaged with air cannons and then sunk by surface ships but i can not keep the track of it).

So, that leaves 92 PTs lost in the surface action.

They sunk 10 DD 2 PCs and two transports (according to intel screen - i'm sure that few more are first damaged with PTs and after that finished from the air - but can not keep the track of it.) So lets assume that i lost 2 more DDs due to PTs.

I like to imagine that i'm solid player so no crazy moves: all my DD (Torpedo boat destroyers) were in surface TF and i sending them in 3 flotillas at least (against 12 PTs)...

And this is what i've got - 10 of my 35 DDs are sunk by PTs in not many battles (don't have time to count naval enounters but if you dont trust me you can do it in my AAR). My navy losses arent big for that period - 9 CA and CLs + 35 DDs. Only 3 of CL/CAs were sunk in the naval battles - rest are sunk from the air. 6 DDs are lost due air attacks or mines. So, out of 29 DDs lost in naval action (surface, submarines) i lost more than one of 1/3 to PTs....

I'm not a lunatic and mostly i'm very careful with my ships - but perhaps i'm shizofrenic and that is not a true - we should ask Andy about it. So, i don't think i'm don't have right to complain about it....

If you look in the editor. Each PT has a unite slot, and unique arrival date in the editor. According to the manual, the only ships that respawn are Barges and MSWs. PTs do not (unless a dev would like to confirm or deny this). They are not unlimited.

Not an expert, really, so can you say how many PTs are available? 200, 300, 500?

[Andy Mac]

Mostly trasnports damaged and a few aux's around Manila and later on around kendari.
 
Some of those DD's sank were around Kendari when the PT Boats finished off crippples after brought Force Z in and killed or damaged 6 or 7 DD's - And I admit that particular Gp of PT Boats I remmeber with great pride they did very well and were VERY experienced when you finally got them [:D][:D]
 
12 DD's for 92 PT Boats is a ratio I am unhappy with especially as some of the DD's were to some extent damaged by POW 1st.
 
My PT Boats should do better than that ESPECIALLY in the period before the Jap DD's get their AA upgrades and all those automatic weapons get added.
 
As I said before Jap DD's at start are NOT Destroyers they are mostly glorified Torpedo Boats themselves !!!!
 
I think the alllies get about 350 total in the war but losses drop off in late 43/44 as the Japanese tend to leave allied bases alone and the allies start to get enough DD's to take over the forward area security (PT Boats are ok but they are to limited so they tend to get relegated further and further back as the war goes on and the fighting leaves NG/Solomons and the allies get more and more proper Destroyers)
 

[Andy Mac]

Pauk you are among the most carefull of my opponents with your ships which is why I find this so funny as I view the whole sequence of attacks we are discussing as out of character (which of course may be the point of these raids to knock me off balance and reconsider your preferred modus operandi)
 
[:D][:D]
 
<baits hook and waits to see if Pauk will provide some free intel>
&nbsp;

[Oliver Heindorf]

I never had luck with PTs I jst made a .50 cal hit on a DD before my PT was sunk.

[Charles2222]

From what I'm seeing here, the main issue seems to be that the DD's are far too easily hit by torps. In every engagement where you can see a DD is hit by a torp, is it assumed that all PT's fire all the torps? As the game works, don't ships always fire their first salvo of torps at it's maximum range (assuming some of the battles start at a range further than that)?

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Pauk you are among the most carefull of my opponents with your ships which is why I find this so funny as I view the whole sequence of attacks we are discussing as out of character (which of course may be the point of these raids to knock me off balance and reconsider your preferred modus operandi)

[:D][:D]

<baits hook and waits to see if Pauk will provide some free intel>

That is why i feels robbed - what would happend that i'm easy going with my Navy, just imagine!!! This was carefully planed operation, leaders and DD task composition were carefully choosed....

As for a free intel, no problem: my last air raid on PM was consisted of 3 Tojo sentai and one Chutai. Yes, almost 1-1 ratio kills, but didn't engaged crack Tojos - ony veterans with 70 exp. One group is crack - but this group lost only one pilot. It would be enough if i say that i have lots of crack groups in reserve waiting for your next move!

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

12 DD's for 92 PT Boats is a ratio I am unhappy with especially as some of the DD's were to some extent damaged by POW 1st.

You must be joking, right? You should try Japanese side some day and would know that 12 DDs are enormous loss for the Japanese. Especially when they are lost for nothing in return (if you don't count some of the cheap 350 PTs)... the funny thing is that the whole Combined fleet now fears of couple PTs.... very realistic, right[:D]..

Once again, i do not have nothing against such results if these PTs were backed with surface capital ships (DDs, CAs) but this is not a case...Surigao strait!!!!

[Oliver Heindorf]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

From what I'm seeing here, the main issue seems to be that the DD's are far too easily hit by torps. In every engagement where you can see a DD is hit by a torp, is it assumed that all PT's fire all the torps? As the game works, don't ships always fire their first salvo of torps at it's maximum range (assuming some of the battles start at a range further than that)?

hmm, I never had a PT hitting anything with a torp in 2 years of game play. intresting.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

That they only put forth 2 or 3 examples that have frustrated them. They don't bother to post every action that PTs have been involved in, in their game.

lol, that´s funny! [8|] The examples I posted are all the encounters I had in the last two weeks (there weren´t many more before; one, two?). So the results are....

I´m not the player who begins to complain because I see something once!! For sure not. Seems that Pauk has lost a remarkable number of DDs to PTs too... So...