Torpedo Ordnance

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor

ORIGINAL: Icedawg


I easily could have seen myself situating Nells/Bettys at some level 2 airfield with an Air HQ and adequate torpedo ordnance and wondering why my planes are not carrying torpedoes.

Aren't the supply requirements ONLY for the case when a Command HQ is supplying torpedoes? If there's an Air HQ in range, there's no supply requirement to arm planes with torpedoes, assuming the Air HQ already has torpedoes available.

Hence, in the example you give above (Air HQ available with adequate torpedo ordnance), the amount of supply there won't matter (at least for arming planes with torpedoes).

Edit: Although the way michaelm says it does sound like supply is required for BOTH the Air HQ and/or the Command HQ to supply torpedoes. I'm confused now.

I read it to mean the supply level out of which the planes were flying even when the HQ's had torpedo ordnance available.

[bradfordkay]

Even with Air HQs that arrive with torpedoes on hand, once those torpedoes are expended, they have to have enough supply on hand to draw more torpedoes.
 
Now, for michalem's chart:
 
Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply

 
Is this supply level requirement for the base with the HQ, or the base with the torpedo bombers?

[donkey_roxor]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Even with Air HQs that arrive with torpedoes on hand, once those torpedoes are expended, they have to have enough supply on hand to draw more torpedoes.

Yes, this is clearly true. The question was whether an Air HQ, with currently available torpedoes, need supply on hand in order to equip planes with the currently available torpedoes. I did not think so, but michaelm's post and chart seem to imply that it might.

So, the question: if an Air HQ already has torpedoes, does it need additional supply to equip planes with those torpedoes?

Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply

Now for this supply chart. The only way to get torpedoes is through an Air HQ, a Command HQ, or through a BF with the appropriate torpedo ordnance. In the chart above, are the different multipliers for HQ versus BF? For example, in an AF 4+, is the 2 times multiplier for BF?

[Mynok]

4th Fleet (nearly useless - command radius 1)

SE Area Fleet - useful (command radius 4 or 5)

Combined Fleet - very useful (command radius 9)

Any Japanese stupid enough to use these for Betty bases instead of the naval repair assistance that they are, deserves what he will receive. 4th fleet goes to Truk. SE Fleet to Rabaul and Combined stays in the home islands.

Southern Army - very useful (command radius 9)

Right, so you can base a bunch of Bettys in Malaya or Sumatra....the Philippines? (Why anyone would move it there is beyond me). I tend to put this one in Bangkok or Singapore so I can reinforce air groups.

2nd, 3rd and 5th Air Divisions (useless as a personal house rule prevents me from assigning naval torpedo squadrons to Army commands - I'm assuming torpedo ordnance can only be drawn from the air unit's chain of command)

Useful.

21st-24th Air Flotillas (nearly useless - command radius 1)

You are going to want these on your primary bases so you can get coordinated strikes. Same for the Army air divisions. You aren't going to set these up worrying about how Betties will get torps from them.

11th Air Fleet - useful (command radius 4 or 5)

11th Air Fleet for Rabaul. Of course, no one expects Betties at Rabaul, right? [8|]

If you add to this michaelM's note about supply requirements, it's going to be pretty darned hard for me to get Betty's and Nells into newly captured airfields and have them operating with torpedoes.

And it will be even harder keeping it supplied unless you put the effort into building the port. Which will take time. Far easier to put the Betties in their logical locations where they will be up to speed much more quickly.

Putting Betties at tiny bases might be an emergency choice, but it isn't a sustainable option.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: donkey_roxor

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Even with Air HQs that arrive with torpedoes on hand, once those torpedoes are expended, they have to have enough supply on hand to draw more torpedoes.

Yes, this is clearly true. The question was whether an Air HQ, with currently available torpedoes, need supply on hand in order to equip planes with the currently available torpedoes. I did not think so, but michaelm's post and chart seem to imply that it might.

So, the question: if an Air HQ already has torpedoes, does it need additional supply to equip planes with those torpedoes?

Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply

Now for this supply chart. The only way to get torpedoes is through an Air HQ, a Command HQ, or through a BF with the appropriate torpedo ordnance. In the chart above, are the different multipliers for HQ versus BF? For example, in an AF 4+, is the 2 times multiplier for BF?

You need a supply of torpedoes PLUS the supply requirements listed.
One without the other means can't use torpedoes.
BFs only supply the torpedoes. If no HQ, then you need to use the higher supply rates.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
And it will be even harder keeping it supplied unless you put the effort into building the port. Which will take time. Far easier to put the Betties in their logical locations where they will be up to speed much more quickly.

Putting Betties at tiny bases might be an emergency choice, but it isn't a sustainable option.

It doesn't have to be - consider 11th air fleet being parked in Port Moresby. You can now base torpedoes out of Lae, Buna, Port Moresby or Milne Bay.

Suppose the Allies want to attack Port Moresby using LBA to suppress the airfields from Australia, without carriers.

Good luck!

Is this more or less torps than WITP?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


Is this more or less torps than WITP?

Guess we might want to try playing it and finding out...rather than running around like Chicken Little, screaming "The sky is falling."

[Sheytan]

LOL! Well perhaps some of the problems related to perception is the AI isnt bound apparently to the same rules as a PBEM game would be no? That may be causing some of the confusion.

I agree though, I will see what people have to say after they have been into a campaign game pbem for awhile. I was initally disappointed but I think the AI is doing stuff we couldnt.

Anyway im enjoying the game very much even if betty mania is a pet peeve of mine.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


Is this more or less torps than WITP?

Guess we might want to try playing it and finding out...rather than running around like Chicken Little, screaming "The sky is falling."

[Dili]

I never understood why the torpedos were restricted by base size.IRL Torpedos were restricted by pilot training and torpedo manufacture. Torpedos were dozens of times more expensive to make than a bomb and that put a big restriction in its use. Squadrons were specifically trained for torpedo attack and if not the results were dismal and not economically sustainable. Germans and Italians had specific bomber squadrons for Torpedo attack
Italians even going to the point of renaming their bomber squadrons "aerotorpedo squadron" when converted.
Unfortunately there is no Torpedo training/ability in Game and neither Torpedo production like for mines.

This cost of Torpedos also aplies obviously for ship and submarines ones.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I never understood why the torpedos were restricted by base size.IRL Torpedos were restricted by pilot training and torpedo manufacture. Torpedos were dozens of times more expensive to make than a bomb and that put a big restriction in its use. Squadrons were specifically trained for torpedo attack and if not the results were dismal and not economically sustainable. Germans and Italians had specific bomber squadrons for Torpedo attack
Italians even going to the point of renaming their bomber squadrons "aerotorpedo squadron" when converted.
Unfortunately there is no Torpedo training/ability in Game and neither Torpedo production like for mines.

This cost of Torpedos also aplies obviously for ship and submarines ones.

To train in torpedo bombing, put the torpedo-equipped group on training with a secondary mission of naval attack.
To improve low level skills, set the altitude to 100' with the appropriate secondary mission and it will train in the low level bombing.

[Dili]

Thanks. My issue is that conflation of Torpedo attack and Naval attack training. Crews for Torpedo attack should be few since specific training was required and was expensive.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Suppose the Allies want to attack Port Moresby using LBA to suppress the airfields from Australia, without carriers.

Good luck!

What does this have to do with torps? If I have PM, the only thing that will be based there is ground units to defend it. Everything else will be on the backside where the danger of bombardment is far less. If I never load a single torp on a single Betty it will still require CV support to take PM back.

[dasboot1960]

Had to pitch in. All hail the clear-headed TREE SPIDER(unless of course the sky fell on him) I'm frequently amused by all the hand-wringing and complaining about WHAT WILL BE, with so little refernce to WHAT IS, all because of WHAT WAS BEFORE. I'm PBEM ing as the allies, believe me, I'll whine if I have to................Betties(Netties, I like that) are dangerous things. They have been in every pacific game I've ever played that differentiated types. But I've never heard the same guy whining about IJ torpedo bombers AND US 4E bombers in the same breath..........I know what I'm gonna try and do about em....................I'll shut up if I can just get another turn today.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: dasboot
whining about IJ torpedo bombers AND US 4E bombers in the same breath...

I dunno, if you look in another thread you will find me at least whining about 4E bombers as well. [;)]

And I'm not whining about Betties per se. They aren't as good as they were in WITP. I know mine have done bugger all so far with me playing the Japs.

What I am stating, though, is that this idea that the torpedo ordnance in some what limits them, is false.

[dasboot1960]

Hi EUB. I couldn't get my longtime opponent to play the previous (perhaps he read the forums too much). So I really can't compare, but I've got a feeling I disagree. The IJ still must move those HQs and all that supply just to launch a mission carrying torpedoes, that seems demanding if not 'limiting'. In the actual war, I'd bet there were instances where planes were staged into small spartan fields with inadequate support carrying, their torpedoes with them. I don't think this is modelled in the game at all. I know the IJ staged H8Ks into the french frigate shoals to recon PH before midway (refuelled from sub I think), they could've just as easily brought some torps(in game terms, while it was still a GREEN DOT)........Sounds like you're playing so perhaps we can agree on this - better the imperfect you can play today than the perfect(which is impossible anyway)

[Yamato hugger]

As has already been pointed out that you so skillfully missed is that the fragments do NOTHING for your torpedoes. Only the PARENT has the loads.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: dasboot

Hi EUB. I couldn't get my longtime opponent to play the previous (perhaps he read the forums too much). So I really can't compare, but I've got a feeling I disagree. The IJ still must move those HQs and all that supply just to launch a mission carrying torpedoes, that seems demanding if not 'limiting'. In the actual war, I'd bet there were instances where planes were staged into small spartan fields with inadequate support carrying, their torpedoes with them. I don't think this is modelled in the game at all. I know the IJ staged H8Ks into the french frigate shoals to recon PH before midway (refuelled from sub I think), they could've just as easily brought some torps(in game terms, while it was still a GREEN DOT)........Sounds like you're playing so perhaps we can agree on this - better the imperfect you can play today than the perfect(which is impossible anyway)

Oh, the game is far better than WITP, IMHO.

And I'm not really bothered about the Netties. But when the game was in development there was quite a bit of hype about the limited torpedoes.

[Sheytan]

Huh? Are you implying im willfully ignoring this? I wasnt aware when I originally posted my comments that that needed to be the case. Please refrain from making assumptions about what I think...or dont think, just as I prefer not to put words in your mouth..as well.

[:-]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

As has already been pointed out that you so skillfully missed is that the fragments do NOTHING for your torpedoes. Only the PARENT has the loads.

[kwcampbell]

How DO we add torpedo ordnance to base forces in the editor? I've been playing around with a little modding... would like to add a few torpedo depots here and there. There's a device for this, but I think it's meant for carriers, doesn't seem to work on a base force.
 
None of the HQs that allow this have a device for it. I've toyed around withing turning a few base forces into Air HQs with a radius of one, but I think this will give further advantages with regards to the number of air groups that can be supported at the base etc., and I don't really want that if I can avoid it.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

A Command Hq (with sufficient supply) can act as an Air Hq for torpedo supply purposes if no Air Hq is in range.


Plus you need the supply available at the base:
for AF 4+, you 2 times (or 1 time with an air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 3, you 5 times (or 1 time with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 2, you 6 times (or 2 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply
for AF 1, you 7 times (or 3 times with a air/command hq present) base's required supply

In the GUAD scenario, my Emily's are not able to arm TORPS at Truk. I have 3 HQ's plus 17K supplies against a requirement of 3.7K at a 7(4) air base. Based upon the above, I should be able to arm TORPS correct? What am I missing here?

Thanks.