A Dud Proposal

[Panjack]

Although it is historical to have a very high dud rate for US torpedoes at the beginning of the war, it is unhistorical to have the US and Japanese player know of this high dud rate.

But because in AE both US and Japanese players have this unhistorical knowledge they have good reason to pursue non-historical strategy/tactics (such as the US player using subs for something other than patrols and Japanese players knowing they can mostly ignore the threat of US subs for quite some time). I don't find this satisfying and certainly not historical.

Therefore, I propose the following:

From the beginning of the war until some date, US torpedoes have a higher dud rate than they do later in the war, but this dud rate is a random number between, say, 40% to 90%.


If the above is implemented, the US player doesn't know the actual dud rate and, so, he might reasonably send out subs on patrol at the beginning of the war. Of course, it might all be for naught because the dud rate turns out to be unacceptably high...or it might turn out well because the dud rate might be low enough to make patrols pay off for the US player. The US player might be able to guess, after a couple of weeks or maybe months, whether the dud rate is too high to make patrols worthwhile but will never be certain (although perhaps as some point the dud rate is revealed to the player). The US player could adjust strategy/tactics accordingly (or not).

The Japanese player, if the above is implemented, can't just ignore the US sub threat because the dud rate could be low enough that the loss of ships is potentially high (if the sub threat is simply ignored). After a while the Japanese player might be able to get a sense if the US dud rate is really high (but this would be very difficult information to get for the Japanese player) and adjust strategy accordingly.

Of course, if the US player gets a good roll and the dud rate turns out to be much lower than it was in reality, this would give the US player an advantage that otherwise he would not have. Whether some other disadvantage (say, the US dud rate later in the war might be increased a bit) might be introduced if the US player gets a good roll is certainly an issue to consider.

[jwilkerson]

Nothing wrong with this idea. And it could be extended to apply to probably 1000 other similar situations!

[Big B]

That would be up to the code guys to implement - but for the record, the dud rate on 21" Mk 14 submarine torpedo was bad early on - and the story is a well known.

But the dud rate on early airborne torpedoes was only found to be bad IF the aircraft released the torpedo above the delivery parameters of 150 knots @ 200 feet. Exceeding those limits saw a climb in dud rate - but did not in itself mean the torpedo would malfunction. So realistically, a torpedo plane releasing against a target in early '42 would not expect to see a malfunction if delivered within those parameters (as the text-book attack and results on the CVL Shoho proved), but if operating above those parameters - then the result would become dicey. A good discussion can be found here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

I don't know of any definitive study of 21" Mk 15 surface ship torpedoes, other than they may have suffered problems in 1942 - but were well liked after that and kept through much of the cold war.

ORIGINAL: Panjack

Although it is historical to have a very high dud rate for US torpedoes at the beginning of the war, it is unhistorical to have the US and Japanese player know of this high dud rate.

But because in AE both US and Japanese players have this unhistorical knowledge they have good reason to pursue non-historical strategy/tactics (such as the US player using subs for something other than patrols and Japanese players knowing they can mostly ignore the threat of US subs for quite some time). I don't find this satisfying and certainly not historical.

Therefore, I propose the following:

From the beginning of the war until some date, US torpedoes have a higher dud rate than they do later in the war, but this dud rate is a random number between, say, 40% to 90%.


If the above is implemented, the US player doesn't know the actual dud rate and, so, he might reasonably send out subs on patrol at the beginning of the war. Of course, it might all be for naught because the dud rate turns out to be unacceptably high...or it might turn out well because the dud rate might be low enough to make patrols pay off for the US player. The US player might be able to guess, after a couple of weeks or maybe months, whether the dud rate is too high to make patrols worthwhile but will never be certain (although perhaps as some point the dud rate is revealed to the player). The US player could adjust strategy/tactics accordingly (or not).

The Japanese player, if the above is implemented, can't just ignore the US sub threat because the dud rate could be low enough that the loss of ships is potentially high (of the sub threat is simply ignored). After a while the Japanese player might be able to get a sense if the US dud rate is really high (but this would be very difficult information to get for the Japanese player) and adjust strategy accordingly.

Of course, if the US player gets a good roll and the dud rate turns out to be much lower than it was in reality, this would give the US player an advantage that otherwise he would not have. Whether some other disadvantage (say, the US dud rate later in the war might be increased a bit) might be introduced if the US player gets a good roll is certainly an issue to consider.

[CEDeaton]

An interesting proposal. I'd like to throw out a couple other thoughts on this...

Randomly report duds to both sides as either misses or duds and the fog of war will make it difficult to sort out what is going wrong, just as it happened IRL. I'd think the Japanese would be more likely to know when they'd been hit by a dud that the hapless sub commander. I've been aboard a Frigate when it hit a whale. There was no doubt something was amiss. Except for the largest of ships, they would probably notice when they've been hit by something the weight of a Volkswagen going 35-50 knots, even if it doesn't explode.

If the random roll produces a better-than-historical result for the allies, it takes longer for the problem to be addressed and corrected. On the other hand, if the result is even worse, it's safe to assume the problem would be dealt with sooner. This would be quite plausible in the historic sense.

[sfbaytf]

This would be a good thing to have as an optional button.

I also have to wonder about effectiveness of merchants fighting back against subs attacking on the surface.

I don't have any idea how effective it was in real life, so for all I know it may be accurate.

[Mark Weston]

Hindsight is the biggest single generator of unhistorical events in any wargame.

But you can't just argue for applying this approach to torpedoes unless you apply it to many other (and some more important) aspects of the game. Maybe the Japanese player shouldn't know he's going to get a free ride from the Pearl Harbour defences - randomise the chances of surprise. Randomise the location of the US carriers. There's a whole swathe of knowledge about the real-world technical performance of weapons and platforms that we have (well some of us; my knowledge of the Pacific war is pretty sketchy) and commanders at the time didn't.

It's a valid approach to wargame design, focusing on the decision-making process instead of the hardware. But it's the kind of design decision that you make early on and that shapes the entire game. AE is clearly a detail oriented simulation, aimed at maximum historical accuracy and that's pretty much the opposite approach. You can't abolish hindsight without losing a large chunk of the historical detail.

[EUBanana]

I have to say... even with the dud rates as high as they are, if you don't escort your convoys the Japanese are going to get torn to pieces.  What else are you going to do with subs anyway?  Minelaying has been nerfed into the ground, and sub tranport I find to be, basically, useless.  I suppose you could keep them in port until 1943, but I don't think the Allies really have a shortage of submarines.  You may as well use 'em.

Also 'the benefit of hindsight' argument applies to almost everything.  You could argue that the Japanese shouldn't be allowed to use convoy escorts until 1944.  I don't think thats really the point of the game as I see it.  The point is that all the units behave within historical spec, and broadly speaking its up to the player to use them as they see fit.

[DrewMatrix]

Also 'the benefit of hindsight' argument applies to almost everything.

Hehehe. Yes. You could say that given hindsight the Japanese shouldn't ever have gone to war. But not much of a game in that instance.

[Brady]

Actualy when you review the data for US Torps and their dud rates, US Subs and Air Droped torps actualy fair far better in game than they did in real life, this for a varity of reasions, non the least of which is the opertunity to use them, which realy aply to the TBD, in real life they had an apaling hit rate/dud rate.

In Game the dud rate for the MK XIII is like 50%:

The folowing from Hear (and My Book on the TBD says the same thing more or less, I have the Squardon Book on it):

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/vt2jl_1.htm

This raid by Lexington and Yorktown was intended to cover a troop convoy between Noumea and Australia while at the same time complying with Admiral King’s simple order to “attack the enemy.” Japanese ships present after the March 8 landings at Lae-Salamaua on Huon Gulf, in the bight of New Guinea facing the Bismark Sea, provided the targets. Details of this raid can be found in References d and f.
The article presents one of the 13 TBDs Lexington put up from Torpedo Two armed with the Mk XIII aerial torpedo. These aircraft executed torpedo attacks on several (I have not found an exact count) ships in the Huon Gulf. One hit was claimed, per reference d; the rest of the torpedoes malfunctioned

Less than 10% of Mk XIIIs dropped in combat by TBDs scored, mostly because the torpedo malfunctioned. The malfunctions were known pre-war but ignored by the navy Bureau of Ordnance whose responsibility they were. The weapon would eventually become reliable and effective, but the entire story of USN pre-war torpedo development is an abysmal one and reflects no credit on that service

[Mynok]

Why an Allied player would use subs for anything but patrol escapes me completely, especially in AE where the Japs have so little transport capacity.

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Why an Allied player would use subs for anything but patrol escapes me completely, especially in AE where the Japs have so little transport capacity.

I use the Allied Subs to good efect, espichaly if you send them to tradational hunting grounds, the back watters of the war, whear their are fewer escorts, even with the dud rate I get hits often by MK XIV's and the subs will engage with some frequency unescorted ships with their deck guns.

[Panjack]

Good points all around.

But I like the idea because (I'm guessing) it would be easy to implement and would add yet another layer of complexity. (And heavens knows the game isn't complex enough yet! [8D] )

[jwilkerson]

If we combined this idea with doing another dozen or so similar ideas (varying EXP levels, supply levels, starting positions, etc.) we would probably have to have a "switch" that people could select - something like "Historical Data // Randomized Data". I doubt this would make patch 02, but we've had discussions about this type of idea. I could see something like this happening after patch 02.