Torpedo bombers not consuming sorties

[Jorge_Stanbury]

In my PBEM game, I found that torpedo bombers on naval strike-torpedo will not consume sorties

This puzzled many experienced players reading my AAR. So the question is, this is WAD?

regards

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

In my PBEM game, I found that torpedo bombers on naval strike-torpedo will not consume sorties

This puzzled many experienced players reading my AAR. So the question is, this is WAD?

regards

Are they consuming torpedoes instead? Once the torpedoes are gone, they will start using up the sorties IIRC...

[Lowpe]

Agree with Lok, WAD is my guess. I don't see why they should double dip taking both torpedoes and sorties.

[HansBolter]

Don't sorties represent av gas as well as bombs?

I think that is why it seems strange to players.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

To answer Lokasenna's question:
yes indeed, they spent torpedoes

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't sorties represent av gas as well as bombs?

I think that is why it seems strange to players.

And what makes you think torpedoes don't represent avgas as well as the actual fish.

[Lokasenna]

Well.... near as I can tell, sorties are bombs. You can fly CAP from your CVs for years on end without ever running out of sorties. Try it sometime. I won't speak as to whether that's WAD, but that's definitely how it works now. Avgas onboard carriers simply isn't representing in any way. Sorties are bombs, and possibly drop tanks (I haven't tested whether fighters on CAP/escort with drop tanks consume sorties).

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Don't sorties represent av gas as well as bombs?

I think that is why it seems strange to players.

And what makes you think torpedoes don't represent avgas as well as the actual fish.

That would be the terminology used.

Sorties implies both fuel and ordnance, or at least I and apparently others infer this from it.

While torpedoes is specific to the ordnance and thus is inferred to mean exactly that and nothing more.

If sorties had been labeled ordnance then I would follow your logic that each reference to ordnance of a different type also includes the fuel necessary to deliver it.

My thinking may be convoluted but it makes sense to me and that is what works for me. [:D]

Always appreciate the devil's advocate argument though....forces one to think.