neutered PT boats post 1095/1096

[bradfordkay]

Charbroiled... you missed my comment earlier that the first thing I did after seeing the above was to check to see if he still had his torpedoes - and, yes, he did. I also admitted earlier in this thread that this MTB skipper is a very timid fellow (39 on aggression).

My disagreement is with people who say that as a matter of course a PT skipper will avoid combat in daylight against unescorted xAKs... Mdiehl has already quoted the portions of the official USN PT doctrine (from the link posted by someone else) which state that even if conditions "do not warrant an expectation of successful escape" the boats should press to minimum launching distance. And yet the arguments continue that the men aren't suicidal and therefore will not attack unescorted merchants because those merchants might possibly have weapons which can cause serious damage to the PT.

I am okay now with this particular combat report - the PT skipper was timid as a mouse. His was the only survivor of the MTB squadron from Hong Kong - which had just recently fought (and been destroyed by) a TF consisting of the Kirishima, Atago and several destroyers. His timidity is probably the reason his boat is the only survivor of that fight. When I first posted in this thread I had just seen the PT turn away from the Lisbon Maru and had yet to check more than that she still had torpedoes. I am satisfied with this situation, but I will not be happy if the idea that PTs are to avoid unescorted merchants in daylight is part of the game routine. I doubt that it is, but that appears to be what many on this thread are arguing.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Charbroiled... you missed my comment earlier...

Brad, I wasn't really talking about your case specifically, I was trying to point out that a lot of people say that "this is broken, or that is broken" when in reality it is a case missing a "subtle factor" of the game like torpedo loads (or leader aggressiveness.[:D]) I know that I have easily missed some "subtle factor" of the game and thought "WTF" only to realise it was my own doing.

(However, I did miss your comment that you had already checked the torpedo load.[:'(])

Sorry for the confusion.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Brad, I wasn't really talking about your case specifically, I was trying to point out that a lot of people say that "this is broken, or that is broken" when in reality it is a case missing a "subtle factor" of the game like torpedo loads (or leader aggressiveness.[:D]) I know that I have easily missed some "subtle factor" of the game and thought "WTF" only to realise it was my own doing.

That's why I'm a firm believer of having clear, published rules about how the game behaves. I don't believe in blacking out the game rules to prevent gamey exploits, because a realistic wargame depends heavily in the suspension of disbelief -- which is linked to the player's perception. While a player trusts that the game behaves correctly, he suspends disbelief and enjoys the game. But once the player starts to suspect that the game is misbehaving, suspension of disbelief goes through the window and the game becomes a big database that behaves in unpredictable ways.

So, the way I see it, complex, hidden and mysterious rules work against the game when the players get confused and doubtful on the game's behavior.

Just my two cents. Thanks,
fbs

[Admiral Scott]

Well said fbs.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Ok, I know I am cow tippin, and those sacred cows are not made of gold here, so, why do we need it "because it was there? Come on guys, there are literally thousands of units not in the game ..
We don't need no stinking eye candy, ok rant over.
I vote we totally revamp the way units are resupplied and devide supplies into all major food groups, PLUS, lets not forget teh hospitals, hospital ships, subs picking up downed pilots, oh ye, that is in the game, and the JAps used burning phospherous incederies to shoot down bombers, gotta have that!!!
And barrage balloons, derigables, spys.. code books decoding interception stations.. come on there is tons of stuff missing[X(][X(][:-][:-][:-]

I'd be in favor of hospital ships. They were there, they were important, and most critically, they used fuel to get the guys home. Planning, planning . . .

[Admiral Scott]

I think we have enough micromanagment as it is.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: fbs

That's why I'm a firm believer of having clear, published rules about how the game behaves. I don't believe in blacking out the game rules to prevent gamey exploits, because a realistic wargame depends heavily in the suspension of disbelief -- which is linked to the player's perception. While a player trusts that the game behaves correctly, he suspends disbelief and enjoys the game. But once the player starts to suspect that the game is misbehaving, suspension of disbelief goes through the window and the game becomes a big database that behaves in unpredictable ways.

So, the way I see it, complex, hidden and mysterious rules work against the game when the players get confused and doubtful on the game's behavior.

Just my two cents. Thanks,
fbs

Gotta disagree.

I believe the code executes the way it's written. That's my "faith." I don't believe the code rewrites itself randomly, just to piss me off. I don't believe the devs put in Fizzbin rules (look it up, or ask a Star Trek fan.)

Beyond that, I DON'T think a player needs "clear, published rules" for every operation of the code, every algorithm, every random number location. If you want to "suspend disbelief" don't expect this. War isn't like this. If you're modeling a variety of POVs, from NCA (in Japan's economy) to individual pilot or CO, don't expect that guy (who is you while you're suspending disbelief) to know, in advance, what input X will get in terms of output Y. What such and such an artillery mission will produce in disruption. That an xAK larger than 12,000 tons will always sink from two torpedo hits, but never from one.

I suppose it's inevitable that the most complex PC wargame ever sold will attract a lot of OCD-ish players, guys who are control freaks. But, again, war isn't like that. Take what the game gives you and react to it. When you get that output, react to that. Do that 1800 times. That's the game.

Or, think of it like this: If you DID know in advance every detail, minute or otherwise, of what the effect of an action would be in the game, would you still want to play it? Isn't the appeal in NOT knowing what will happen? The "watch this!" effect? The slow accumulaiton of experience in how the outputs form trends when you do generally this or that?

That's a big part of the appeal for me at least. Learning. Experimenting. Being frustrated, and re-planning. Re-starting with what I learned last time and doing better. Because the game is, really, with myself, not the AI (the devs' devious tricks.) It's me testing me. If I know from a rule book what the recipe will spit out there's no effort, and thus no reward. Said differently, I own probably 500 computer games going back to the early 1980s. None of them give me the internal satisfaction AE does, win or lose. In fact, I prefer to lose, because then I have more to fix, and I can learn more. Maybe that's just age talking; I don't know if I could have appreciated AE when I was 20. But it's the main reason I don't want the game's guts exposed to daylight.

[Admiral Scott]

I for one would like to know exactly everything about how the game uses leaders.
There is still some mystery to it.
For instance, does a leaders inspiration rating affect a non-air combat TF?
If it does, how so?
I've never gotten an answer to that yet.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Charbroiled... you missed my comment earlier that the first thing I did after seeing the above was to check to see if he still had his torpedoes - and, yes, he did. I also admitted earlier in this thread that this MTB skipper is a very timid fellow (39 on aggression).

My disagreement is with people who say that as a matter of course a PT skipper will avoid combat in daylight against unescorted xAKs... Mdiehl has already quoted the portions of the official USN PT doctrine (from the link posted by someone else) which state that even if conditions "do not warrant an expectation of successful escape" the boats should press to minimum launching distance. And yet the arguments continue that the men aren't suicidal and therefore will not attack unescorted merchants because those merchants might possibly have weapons which can cause serious damage to the PT.

I am okay now with this particular combat report - the PT skipper was timid as a mouse. His was the only survivor of the MTB squadron from Hong Kong - which had just recently fought (and been destroyed by) a TF consisting of the Kirishima, Atago and several destroyers. His timidity is probably the reason his boat is the only survivor of that fight. When I first posted in this thread I had just seen the PT turn away from the Lisbon Maru and had yet to check more than that she still had torpedoes. I am satisfied with this situation, but I will not be happy if the idea that PTs are to avoid unescorted merchants in daylight is part of the game routine. I doubt that it is, but that appears to be what many on this thread are arguing.

Brad, I'm fine with the concept that there might rarely be attacks by PT's in daylight, but I dispute the notion that quoting the written doctrine of the day settles the issue. Was the practice to follow that doctrine, or did they learn that IRL that particular doctrine wasn't the last word on daylight attacks? I believe questioning whether that doctrine was implemented faithfully, or very much at all, in these cases like these is quite valid in this instance.

Of course, IIRC the doctrine also included actions in groups ("squadrons"), whereas we are presented with the example of a PT operating alone, which IRL would also be a factor.

I should also clarify that I was not suggesting that the PT boat skipper presumed some high level of armament of his ten (potential) target ships, I was making a presumption because the data is unavailable from the combat report. I think I made reasonable guesses as to the target groups likely minimum armament. At least I didn't see any estimates to the contrary.

I'm certainly open minded about this, but given the historical reality that the PT boats faced I would be highly skeptical (aka take a lot of convincing) regarding any notion that PT's ought to be routinely blasting convoys in daylight (exaggerating to make myself clear - not suggestion that you favor such an outcome).

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Charbroiled... you missed my comment earlier that the first thing I did after seeing the above was to check to see if he still had his torpedoes - and, yes, he did. I also admitted earlier in this thread that this MTB skipper is a very timid fellow (39 on aggression).

My disagreement is with people who say that as a matter of course a PT skipper will avoid combat in daylight against unescorted xAKs... Mdiehl has already quoted the portions of the official USN PT doctrine (from the link posted by someone else) which state that even if conditions "do not warrant an expectation of successful escape" the boats should press to minimum launching distance. And yet the arguments continue that the men aren't suicidal and therefore will not attack unescorted merchants because those merchants might possibly have weapons which can cause serious damage to the PT.

I am okay now with this particular combat report - the PT skipper was timid as a mouse. His was the only survivor of the MTB squadron from Hong Kong - which had just recently fought (and been destroyed by) a TF consisting of the Kirishima, Atago and several destroyers. His timidity is probably the reason his boat is the only survivor of that fight. When I first posted in this thread I had just seen the PT turn away from the Lisbon Maru and had yet to check more than that she still had torpedoes. I am satisfied with this situation, but I will not be happy if the idea that PTs are to avoid unescorted merchants in daylight is part of the game routine. I doubt that it is, but that appears to be what many on this thread are arguing.

Brad, I'm fine with the concept that there might rarely be attacks by PT's in daylight, but I dispute the notion that quoting the written doctrine of the day settles the issue. Was the practice to follow that doctrine, or did they learn that IRL that particular doctrine wasn't the last word on daylight attacks? I believe questioning whether that doctrine was implemented faithfully, or very much at all, in these cases like these is quite valid in this instance.

Of course, IIRC the doctrine also included actions in groups ("squadrons"), whereas we are presented with the example of a PT operating alone, which IRL would also be a factor.

I should also clarify that I was not suggesting that the PT boat skipper presumed some high level of armament of his ten (potential) target ships, I was making a presumption because the data is unavailable from the combat report. I think I made reasonable guesses as to the target groups likely minimum armament. At least I didn't see any estimates to the contrary.

I'm certainly open minded about this, but given the historical reality that the PT boats faced I would be highly skeptical (aka take a lot of convincing) regarding any notion that PT's ought to be routinely blasting convoys in daylight (exaggerating to make myself clear - not suggestion that you favor such an outcome).

Well.. about the squadrons disclaimer, here is what our friend Mdiehl posted from that source:
"(b) Whether massed attacks will be conducted by several squadrons or individual attacks by units of a squadron"

So apparently the training took into account the idea that there might not be much of a squadron left. My mentioning of the doctrine comes not so much from the idea that the combattants should always follow said doctrine, but as a response to the idea that they would never make such attacks.

We all know that in WW2 men often made choices that imperiled their own lives because they felt that the situation required the extra effort. Some posts in this thread lead the reader to assume that the posters believe otherwise. I'm not saying that you do, juust that some posts have left this impression - much as some readers get the impression that I feel that the boats should always attack.

I agree with Don bowen is that a range of possibilites should be programmed into the game. I believe that this is the case, but some folks seem to be arguing otherwise.

[witpqs]

I agree with the 'range of results' approach, while (obviously) wanting the low-percentage results to be just that - occurring a low percentage of the time.

That's basically how I feel about most of the daylight attacks we are discussing. Like you, I am not advocating a no-risk policy for PT boats, but of course they were not suicide boats either.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Gotta disagree.

I believe the code executes the way it's written. That's my "faith." I don't believe the code rewrites itself randomly, just to piss me off. I don't believe the devs put in Fizzbin rules (look it up, or ask a Star Trek fan.)

Beyond that, I DON'T think a player needs "clear, published rules" for every operation of the code, every algorithm, every random number location. If you want to "suspend disbelief" don't expect this.

I don't disagree with your disagreement. It's a matter of taste: some people accept that they are handling a black box, while others get frustrated when the black box behaves in ways they can't explain. So you're not wrong in feeling comfortable, I'm just pointing out that others don't feel that way.

I don't mean to publish every formula or algorithm: I mean that some sections of the manual are very very detailed and clear, while other sections are unclear and mysterious. For example, you know exactly how many fatigue points you get per pilot per mission (very detailed information), but unless you read a lot of threads here you will not know how HQ types/stats affect the game.

My point is that the sections of the manual that are unclear/mysterious/incomplete/etc... create frustration in some types of players, generate unnecessary discussions and end up being clarified by the devs anyway. If they are just written up, then those that don't care for the details can just ignore them.


Thanks,
fbs

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

I for one would like to know exactly everything about how the game uses leaders.
There is still some mystery to it.
For instance, does a leaders inspiration rating affect a non-air combat TF?
If it does, how so?
I've never gotten an answer to that yet.

As far as the rules go this is the biggest problem is the game and it doesn't seem as if its ever going to get fixed.

[oldman45]

For whats its worth, I have 9 MTB's hit a port in the Phillipines and nailed 3 AKL's and escaped with minor damage. They will attack if they pass their die roll I guess [:)]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok lets try again
PT boats where inaffective
usingthem wastes time.. and is ahistorical, unless they are ineffective again wasting our time..
Why mnodel an ineffective part ofthe war,?game?.. 

There are a lot of missions the PT boats did in reality that aren't modeled well or at all in this game.

As far as effectiveness in-game goes, well they torpedoed something like 12 or so ships during the war and sank I think 7 of them. I've also heard they shot down at least 5 aircraft. In return about 7 PT boats were lost to enemy action (ramming, strafing, naval gunnery, etc.). I do believe that's more effective than the Japanese minisubs which are also in the game and had only one purpose.

Good enough reason for me to have them.

PTs were in fact used for evacuation (MacArthur from the Phillipines), VIP transport, moving small numbers of troops on short hops between bases, etc. There is a lot of things that PTs were used for not in game.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

For whats its worth, I have 9 MTB's hit a port in the Phillipines and nailed 3 AKL's and escaped with minor damage. They will attack if they pass their die roll I guess [:)]

oldman, that is the sort of post I was hoping to see when I first joined this thread. Showing that it can happen (you are using at least v1.095, right?) is a much better way to respond than to ridicule those who are questioning the way the game is working... [:)]

[spence]

If one considers the combat record of PTs against major warships one finds that they accomplished very little. We need to agree on what criterion should be used to judge what they could have accomplished.

It occurs to me that exactly the same combat record was achieved by all those pretty IJN battleships. Other than whatever it may be said that Hiei and Kirishima accomplished in their last sortie(s) the record of damage the remainder of the IJN battlefleet inflicted on the Allies roughly approximates the amount of damage that the Allied PTs inflicted on the IJN.

Let's hear it for nerfing the IJN Battlefleet in the next patch.

[Mark VII]

Lets maybe wait a year or two before nerfing Jap BB's as I need them in recently started game vs Capt Ed.[:D]

ORIGINAL: spence

Let's hear it for nerfing the IJN Battlefleet in the next patch.

[Mark VII]

And speaking of new game.
How could this happen? To make it worse a Philippine crewed PT gets the kill! I thought this last patch neutered the PT's and my invasion would be safe?
This game must be broken! Wahhhhhhhhhh! He sunk my destroyer! Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:D][:D][:D]

Dec 9,1941
Night Time Surface Combat, near Vigan at 80,73, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Natori
DD Murasame, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Samidare
DD Fumizuki
DD Nagatsuki

Allied Ships
PT-31
PT-32
PT-33
PT-34, Shell hits 1
PT-35
PT-41
PT Q-111
PT Q-112, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PT Q-113

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 78% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 10,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
PT-35 engages DD Fumizuki at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT-34 at 6,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-33 at 6,000 yards
PT-32 engages DD Nagatsuki at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT-31 at 6,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT Q-113 at 5,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT Q-113 at 5,000 yards
PT Q-113 engages DD Fumizuki at 5,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT-41 at 5,000 yards
DD Murasame sunk by PT Q-113 at 5,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-33 at 5,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT-32 at 5,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-31 at 5,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT Q-113 at 5,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT Q-111 at 5,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-35 at 5,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-35 at 5,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT-32 at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
PT Q-112 sunk by DD Fumizuki at 6,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT Q-111 at 6,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-41 at 6,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-35 at 6,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-34 at 6,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-33 at 6,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-32 at 6,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-31 at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT Q-113 at 10,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-35 at 10,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT Q-113 at 10,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-35 at 10,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-34 at 10,000 yards
DD Nagatsuki engages PT-33 at 10,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-32 at 10,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-31 at 10,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CL Natori engages PT Q-111 at 12,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages PT Q-113 at 12,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT Q-113 at 12,000 yards
DD Samidare engages PT-34 at 12,000 yards
CL Natori engages PT-33 at 12,000 yards
Task forces break off...

[Sardaukar]

This is from my last game turn vs. IJ AI:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 98,130, Range 1,000 Yards
 
Japanese Ships
      BB Mutsu, Torpedo hits 2,  on fire
      CA Nachi
      CL Tama
      DD Hatsuharu
      DD Asagao
      DD Karii
 
Allied Ships
      PT-36
      PT-37
      PT-44
      PT-45
 
 
 
Reduced sighting due to 25% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 25% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
BB Mutsu engages PT-45 at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Asagao engages PT-45 at 3,000 yards
Task forces break off...
 

Not too bad. [;)]