Damn the Torpedoes

[tacticon]

One of the things that I would change in this game is how the unreliable US torpedoes gets resolved. Right now, everyone knows the fleet subs are firing blanks until 1943. This means that the US player will use his subs cautiously until the problem is resolved. I think that this leads to ahistoric play. The US fleet boats did go on war patrols in 1942. No one expected a torpedo problem until the issue became widely reported. The Navy really thought it was going to war with the best torpedo in the world.

But, what if the torpedo reliability is linked to the number of duds reported. Once you get 200 misses, then then in 6 months you get the first 20% increase in reliability. Once you get 100 “hits no explosions” then in 6 months you get your final increase in reliability. The numbers are just for discussion purposes, I have not research what they actually should be. This method encourages historical use of the fleet boats and simulates the actual conditions that existed during the war. If you are aggressive with your war patrols, you might get reliable torpedoes sooner, but at the risk of loosing a few extra boats. Cautious play would result in later point of achieving torpedo reliability. After all, if you not using so many torpedoes, how are you going to convince BuOrd that there is even a problem?

This way the both players will have no idea exactly when the torps start working. Maybe adding a little additional variability into the mix as well, +/-30 days to increase the uncertainty. I know that this idea is not going get added to a patch and there is no other WITP:AE versions on the horizon. Nor, can something like this be modded in. I just offer the idea for academic discussion.

[BillBrown]

No change is going to be made to the program. It is possible to make some changes via a mod.
Plus, misses are not duds, only those messages that say hit, no explosion are really duds.

[Trugrit]

You need to take a look at Big B’s B-MOD: AE

The B-MOD: AE is, in my opinion, the very best Historical Player Modification ever made for this game.

Take a look at the scenario read me on the Mark 14 torpedoes. I’ve linked to it below.
(Read the whole thing, you will be impressed)

I once told Big B that no Japanese player is ever going to want to play it, it is too historical.

B-Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/bigbsshipyard/b-mod-ae

Read Me For The B-Mod:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... TJhNTQ3MzU

His changes to China are the best historical China modifications ever done.

[tacticon]

BillBrown, I'm not entirely sure about the torpedo algorithm, I didn't know if some of the misses are due to other aspects of the faulty torpedoes like the magnetic exploders. Maybe I was over thinking it.

Trugrit, I think I try it this mod next when my current game is over (in 9 or 10 months). I wonder how Big B was able to adjust the torpedo dud rate, is this possible with the editor?

[Lovejoy]

ORIGINAL: tacticon
is this possible with the editor?

You could create a new Mk 14 torpedo (Mk 14A or something) in the editor that has a lower dud rate, and then edit the US submarine classes to have them use it.

[Kull]

Keep in mind that the Allied player still has the Dutch subs and the US S-boats, neither of which has the dud problem, and consequently they are far more effective in-game than they were historically. Also, there's no reason for the Allied player not to use his fleet boats, as Japanese ASW is pathetic in the early war.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

they will gain experience with each dud, plusthere is no point in using US fleet boats "cautiously", as they are near invulnerable early war; other than mines or port attacks you can expect maybe 1 or 2 loses in 42

[Trugrit]

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

ORIGINAL: tacticon
is this possible with the editor?

You could create a new Mk 14 torpedo (Mk 14A or something) in the editor that has a lower dud rate, and then edit the US submarine classes to have them use it.

You can change it directly in the editor. The device has a field for dud rate.
Then I think the game handles it as a device upgrade. Maybe to Mark 15 then 9?
I can't remember the path or how you modify the dates.

[jdsrae]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

they will gain experience with each dud, plusthere is no point in using US fleet boats "cautiously", as they are near invulnerable early war; other than mines or port attacks you can expect maybe 1 or 2 loses in 42

I agree with this, the allied player who doesn’t use their subs is missing a big trick.
Even though it’s frustrating to see the “hit no explosion” if you don’t use your subs you’re chances of an exploding torp are zero.
Two weeks into my first pbem and CrackSabbath has had one exploding USN torp already on a big Yusen Transport. He’s going to get more as our forces bump into each other more often and there isn’t much I can do about his subs in deep water.
Why would any allied player choose to miss out on doing that?

[tacticon]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

ORIGINAL: tacticon
is this possible with the editor?

You could create a new Mk 14 torpedo (Mk 14A or something) in the editor that has a lower dud rate, and then edit the US submarine classes to have them use it.

You can change it directly in the editor. The device has a field for dud rate.
Then I think the game handles it as a device upgrade. Maybe to Mark 15 then 9?
I can't remember the path or how you modify the dates.

You can change it directly in the editor. The device has a field for dud rate.
Then I think the game handles it as a device upgrade. Maybe to Mark 15 then 9?
I can't remember the path or how you modify the dates.

In the Big B mode, he was able to create another dud decrease date. Maybe this was done by creating a another MK14 torpedo in the devices. I will have to dl the mod and have a look. The other dates are what's hard coded.

Dec 1941-Mar 1942: 80% dud rate
April - Dec 1942: 50% dud rate
Jan - Sep 1943: 30% dud rate
Sep 1943 and on: 10% dud rate

[fcooke]

Haven't read the link yet....

Crud torps for the first 18 months of the war was a travesty - good thing the IJN didn't have good ASW.

And wasn't one of the bigwigs in the Pacific an ex New London (US torp development base) guy who could not admit the fish he helped develop were not perfect? Sorry - sources not to hand.

And it was not just one fault:

They ran deep
magnetic exploders did not work
and if you got a perfect 180 degree angle hit on the target the firing pin was more likely to snap that fire the warhead.

A whole lot of CYA on this one and I don't recall anyone getting fired or demoted.

And then there were the circular runs - I think at least three which are documented, the most famous (infamous) being the USS Tang. Really not fun when your best war patrol ends with your 24th (out of 24 on board) torp comes back at you and hits you in the rear.....

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

...
And wasn't one of the bigwigs in the Pacific an ex New London (US torp development base) guy who could not admit the fish he helped develop were not perfect? Sorry - sources not to hand.
...
A whole lot of CYA on this one and I don't recall anyone getting fired or demoted.

IIRC V/Adm Lockwood set up a firing range involving a submerged cliff in the HI. After they fired a sufficiently large number of torpedoes at the cliff to get some reliable data, something very simple finally got done. They disconnected the magnetic device, and made their own improved contact exploders locally. He had earlier done something similar in Fremantle involving a fishing net, related to the running depth problem. The fix for that was also a quite simple mechanical change.

[fcooke]

Was the fishing net in Freemantle? For some reason (old age) I thought it was with the cliff shots in the HI. And then there was the 'interesting' experiment with the disabled Japanese tanker - I think it was a tanker. Now I need to go hunt for my sources.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Was the fishing net in Freemantle? For some reason (old age) I thought it was with the cliff shots in the HI. And then there was the 'interesting' experiment with the disabled Japanese tanker - I think it was a tanker. Now I need to go hunt for my sources.

This was when Lockwood was R/Adm commanding SWPAC subs over there. So I I think it was from memory, but I could be wrong.

The fellow who you refer to (?Christie?) took over when Lockwood was called back to Oahu as commander Pacfleet subs. He was eventually ordered by Kinkaid to disconnect the magnetic exploders, six months or so after that was done in the HI.

I suppose it is worth saying that if they had worked out how to get the magnetic exploders to operate in tune with the different magnetic fields in the Pacific, then torpedoes running (a bit) deeper and under the target would have worked quite well. It was, fundamentally a good piece of kit, but hadn't been tweaked for the operational area. The other problem was the skippers were adjusting the depth settings "unofficially" and taking hull shots, so the magnetic device went off in the wrong place, horizontally away from the target.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: tacticon

One of the things that I would change in this game is how the unreliable US torpedoes gets resolved. Right now, everyone knows the fleet subs are firing blanks until 1943. This means that the US player will use his subs cautiously until the problem is resolved. I think that this leads to ahistoric play. The US fleet boats did go on war patrols in 1942. No one expected a torpedo problem until the issue became widely reported. The Navy really thought it was going to war with the best torpedo in the world.

But, what if the torpedo reliability is linked to the number of duds reported. Once you get 200 misses, then then in 6 months you get the first 20% increase in reliability. Once you get 100 “hits no explosions” then in 6 months you get your final increase in reliability. The numbers are just for discussion purposes, I have not research what they actually should be. This method encourages historical use of the fleet boats and simulates the actual conditions that existed during the war. If you are aggressive with your war patrols, you might get reliable torpedoes sooner, but at the risk of loosing a few extra boats. Cautious play would result in later point of achieving torpedo reliability. After all, if you not using so many torpedoes, how are you going to convince BuOrd that there is even a problem?

This way the both players will have no idea exactly when the torps start working. Maybe adding a little additional variability into the mix as well, +/-30 days to increase the uncertainty. I know that this idea is not going get added to a patch and there is no other WITP:AE versions on the horizon. Nor, can something like this be modded in. I just offer the idea for academic discussion.

While I like several things about your approach, the part I highlighted is not true for many of us, quite possibly most of us.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


You need to take a look at Big B’s B-MOD: AE

The B-MOD: AE is, in my opinion, the very best Historical Player Modification ever made for this game.

Take a look at the scenario read me on the Mark 14 torpedoes. I’ve linked to it below.
(Read the whole thing, you will be impressed)

I once told Big B that no Japanese player is ever going to want to play it, it is too historical.

B-Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/bigbsshipyard/b-mod-ae

Read Me For The B-Mod:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... TJhNTQ3MzU

His changes to China are the best historical China modifications ever done.

Brian's work is fantastic. We used his MOd as the template for all of the Mods Michael and I have done: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral, and the Between the Storms variants. GREAT stuff!

[Gridley380]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Was the fishing net in Freemantle? For some reason (old age) I thought it was with the cliff shots in the HI. And then there was the 'interesting' experiment with the disabled Japanese tanker - I think it was a tanker. Now I need to go hunt for my sources.

There was net testing in Hawaii, but Lockwood started figuring out there were problems before that - he might have had some limited net testing done in Freemantle as well.

For the latter, I think you're referring to a Japanese whaler:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tonan3_t.htm

See 24 July '43.

"In all, USS TINOSA fires 15 Mark-14 torpedoes and gets 13 hits, but 11 are duds."

[BBfanboy]

deleted - wrong thread!

[BillBrown]

If you do use your fleet subs early, you will not get these reports:
note that this is a Focus Pacific game, lots of extra ships for Japan

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 12, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....
Sub attack near Miri at 65,82

Japanese Ships
CVL Kinryu, Torpedo hits 1
DD Okitsugumo
DD Karuyuki

Allied Ships
SS Perch

[spence]

Frankly, there are too many things that are tied to the historical outcome BUT Japan spent 4 years invading China and managed only a situation stalemate yet the primary Japanese strategy seems to be "Declare war on the rest of the world(LOL) and everything else will turn out OK". Japan may have had something to do with acv "War in the Pacific" in 1943 (or 1944 before the fall of Saipan) but they only had after that was whether or bot 6here would be a Japanese people to rule over personal suicide...their military wanted them to commit seppuku (extremely (unrealistic).