Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Dutch_slith]

Some questions regarding the dutch Navy.

Only the O 20 class was capable of laying mines. Had the minelaying capability been removed from the other dutch sub classes?

Will the four KM minesweepers (A,B,C and D) be in the game?

The Gouvernementsmarine PCs hadn't any ASW weapons, in CHS they had. And in AE?

Zuiderkruis was not a submarine tender. Classification as AE would be better. Still rated as AS?

Serdang was a tender. Not for PTs, but for Patrouillebooten. These were tiny patrol vessels.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: treespider





Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.

That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.

Let me take this one step further then.

Let's say I have a big base with lots of G4Ms and an Naval Air HQ at...Guam for instance. Knowing that my opponant will want to try to take it, and knowing that I've got time to prep for it and plenty of supply, can I keep requesting Torpedos each turn to build up a big stockpile, or will I be limited to an artificial hardcap on the number I can store there?

[jwilkerson]

All this stuff about torpedo load outs is actually Air Team stuff. We navy team pukes are not really in the loop - so for definitive answer we should switch the question over to the air team.

[mdiehl]

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.

This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.

This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.

And we can also say that one of our over-riding goals was to un-em-power the uber air battles - and there are two parts (at least) to that - one is breaking up the larger air attacks into more smaller air attacks - and the other is making it less beneficial to mass air power at a few bases. So ability to micro-manage the torpedo storage would tend to empower rather than un-em-power uber air battles.

But again, I would point out that the Navy Team is not the best place to go for answer to air questions, the air team have the hands, arms and figures deep into the air aspects of the game. They are the best source of data on air issues.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: treespider





Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.

That is a bit lacking in detail. If they are limited like mines are "limited" we may lose them as effective weapons altogether.
Mines could and should be able to deny a port or coastal landing zone - and are able to defeat superior naval forces. [In 1991 the USN led coalition took significant mine casualties and was unwilling to pay the price to clear them. The USN today has no program to build a minesweeper - its last high tech effort having failed - and in 1991 we learned air minesweeping was also ineffective - and once again there is no program to address the problem.] Mine warfare had important victories in both World Wars - and we are denied the ability to lay a true "mine barrage" - mainly by restricting minelaying - so that most ships with mines cannot drop them - and virtually all aircraft cannot drop them. To that was added making it hard to reload mines.

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

It would be far better to let players and modders control loadouts. It also should be possible to do this as IRL - give them weapon counts - and production rates - so that unreasonable usage above that level becomes impossible.

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.

does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?

[TheElf]

Are torpedoes to be rendered a mere "harassment" value - and no longer will a Force Z be sunk by them?
Restricting availabilty severely would mean a force of that sort could move without much concern of this weapon.
IRL it was ignorance of the range of the enemy planes that led to this bad deployment - and the chance the numbers involved would not have sunk it approaches zero. [See The Sinking of Force Z] It is easy to "tweek" this to the point a large force of torpedo bombers will not have the numbers really used.

This feature is still in test, but I saw both Repulse (5) and POW (1) take several torpedoes as the AI pulled them back towards Ceylon through the Malacca Straits…

They should not be “harassment” tools as long as the IJ player maintains an robust supply and Air HQ (in range) combo in a level 4 AF.

Less than that and you risk gradual reductions in the number of A/C that will carry them.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: treespider

In essence each CV has a fixed number of torpedoes that are carried...much like the Sortie number

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points. The air unit then only need be within Command range of the Air HQ to carry torpedoes, assuming some other conditions are met as well. If the Air HQ has no torpedoes then the torpedo planes have none to carry...to get more the Air HQ simply clicks Get more and the requisite supply points are removed from the base.

That's the reader's digest version.

Is this the final versio of what will be in WitP-AE regarding torpedoes?

If yes than this is GREAT and most welcome news - thanks guys for this added realism! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

Pretty much

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

For land based torpedo planes particular Air HQ's can "purchase" torpedoes using supply points.

This can only work if there is a "torpedo pool" with a modest and finite amount of torps, such that massing all of them (by repeated expenditure of supply points) in one or two bases makes them exceptionally scarce elsewhere. The strategic choice of putting all one's eggs in a single basket really ought to be accompanied by the commensurate strategic risk.

The components the make up a single torpedo are assumed to be inherent in supply. We discussed using a production model to create and track individual torpedoes, but found it to be problematic and OTS for this project. We chose to make the supply value of a single torpedo 10 supply point. Thus outfitting a single Daitai will cost 270 supply. That is for one sortie. It could get expensive.

Add to that the need to be in range and operate from a proper AF (4) to get full participation and figure out all the places where you can manage that and you get a bit more restricted than stock.

The difference is we have several layers of restriction

Supply levels determine how “Healthy” an HQ is.
Proximity to that HQ determine what AFs have access to them (there are rules for inside and outside HQ range)
Once a 1-3 AF qualifies (using supply levels factors as a basis 1x normal Supply, 2x normal supply etc.)…
AF size further restricts usage Operationally, (AF size 1-3) but does not prohibit them
. only a % of the A/C at that AF will carry them. That % decreases as the size AF decreases.

[TheElf]

does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?

At the operational level it would be irresponsible to inject that much control over individual torpedoes. Naturally, there were instances of Strikes being launched against targets that did not warrant torpedo attack, and we have a matrix that attempts to prioritize targets, but it is not a sure thing.

The best way to determine if a torpedo attack is warranted is to heavily search a sector you suspect enemy CVs inhabit and be certain that they are there before you select the “Use Torpedoes” option in you Air units. Else you may have torpedoes going into a Neosho or some other unbelievable target.

As I said earlier this is still in test…

[ny59giants]

Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(]

[jwilkerson]

Hey that's a great question - even I'm waiting with baited breath for the answer to that one!
[:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

does this then mean that the CV torp bombers will use up all their torps against AKs and mini MSWs and when a CA or a BB shows up there are no torps left? Or does it mean that there is also a routine now that checks if torps SHOULD be even used?

At the operational level it would be irresponsible to inject that much control over individual torpedoes. Naturally, there were instances of Strikes being launched against targets that did not warrant torpedo attack, and we have a matrix that attempts to prioritize targets, but it is not a sure thing.

The best way to determine if a torpedo attack is warranted is to heavily search a sector you suspect enemy CVs inhabit and be certain that they are there before you select the “Use Torpedoes” option in you Air units. Else you may have torpedoes going into a Neosho or some other unbelievable target.

As I said earlier this is still in test…

We even get an option "use torpedoes"? Wow! [X(]

[Dili]

Add to that the need to be in range and operate from a proper AF (4) to get full participation and figure out all the places where you can manage that and you get a bit more restricted than stock.

 
Shouldnt this been downgraded to AFB 2 or 3 at least(for 1 engine planes obviously)? I know that AFB sizes are somewhat ambiguous since they dont represent only the tarmac size but support equipment too. But since an Aircraft Carrier with a 250m "tarmac" with necessary tools can send Torpedo Bombers that would mean that 99% of any AFB should be able to be transformed into a 4 class airfield with necessary investment.

[John Lansford]

I don't know that many landbased airfields that can travel into the wind at 30 knots, though, so that 250m long mobile flight deck has a slight advantage over a level 1-2 airbase...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(]

Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps.

For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days.

[ny59giants]

Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps.

For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days.

I don't think you understood what I was asking. If you are playing a 2 day turn PBEM and your CVs getting into a battle with other CVs on day 1, will they automatically reload with torpedoes, if available, on the CVs and use them again on day 2?? Or will they use just bombs the second day since the player is not able to manually reload them??

A test of this would be good for you developers using a 2 day turn of PBEM to see how the AI reacts to this possible situation.

[Terminus]

You set a toggle switch for the individual air group (either Use Bombs or Use Torpedoes). As long as the base/carrier has torpedoes available, that switch remains set. You don't have to manually set it each day.

[ny59giants]

Thanks T, I didn't know that. [:)]

[witpqs]

What are the restrictions on CV's resupplying with torps?