More Ammo for SC with Mousetrap Mk 20

[wga8888]

Am about 75% the way through a pbem Guadalcanal campaign. As USN I have several sub chasers (SC-###) out of ammo for their Mousetrap Mk 20 launchers. Parking & resupply at the major bases of Sydney and/or Noumea do not resupply these weapons. Such SC are still useful for ASW using their DC racks but at reduced effectiveness. Can such weapons not receive new ammo, perhaps in scenario play?

-There is no listing for 'Mousetrap' or 'Mk 20' or 'Mk20' on Table 20.1.2.2 Ship Rearmament At Ports Table.
-There is no listing for 'Mousetrap' or 'Mk 20' or 'Mk20' in the Intel/Industry/Troops Reserve pool.
-The word 'Mousetrap' is not recognized by search of the online manual.
-The only 'Mousetrap' reference in the forum search is from a 2010 era post regarding the ASW of ASW weapons.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... p&#4790577

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: wga8888

Am about 75% the way through a pbem Guadalcanal campaign. As USN I have several sub chasers (SC-###) out of ammo for their Mousetrap Mk 20 launchers. Parking & resupply at the major bases of Sydney and/or Noumea do not resupply these weapons. Such SC are still useful for ASW using their DC racks but at reduced effectiveness. Can such weapons not receive new ammo, perhaps in scenario play?

-There is no listing for 'Mousetrap' or 'Mk 20' or 'Mk20' on Table 20.1.2.2 Ship Rearmament At Ports Table.
-There is no listing for 'Mousetrap' or 'Mk 20' or 'Mk20' in the Intel/Industry/Troops Reserve pool.
-The word 'Mousetrap' is not recognized by search of the online manual.
-The only 'Mousetrap' reference in the forum search is from a 2010 era post regarding the ASW of ASW weapons.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =Mousetrap?

Go to the Editor. Select the scenario you are playing by scenario #.
Select the Devices tab and in the description type in Mousetrap.
Look at the fields for the load cost of the item, then refer to the manual loading table.

Or just have any AG, AD or AKE at the port to do the resupply.

There is no way Sydney cannot resupply the weapon unless it is out of supply or operations points, or the Port is damaged. Did you dock the TF and select "Replenish TF?"

[wga8888]

image of SC so effected

[mind_messing]

Mousetrap Mk20 can be found in game by looking at the "Ships Database" and then "ASW weapons".

You should be able to rearm from Sydney (provided sufficient supply in the base) by using the "Replenish TF from Port" button.

[spence]

Can't find where I read it but during all of WW2 I think only one submarine was sunk/damaged by a Mousetrap ASW.

The rocket propulsion system allowed it to be installed on much smaller ships but the pattern of charges was probably just too small (4 or 8 projectiles). I remember seeing a Mousetrap installed on a 95 ft USCG WPB (8 projectiles) back in the 1960s.

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: spence

Can't find where I read it but during all of WW2 I think only one submarine was sunk/damaged by a Mousetrap ASW.

The rocket propulsion system allowed it to be installed on much smaller ships but the pattern of charges was probably just too small (4 or 8 projectiles). I remember seeing a Mousetrap installed on a 95 ft USCG WPB (8 projectiles) back in the 1960s.

I do not know about any sunk submarines, but apparently dd-648 was sunk by an explosion of a mousetrap mark 22 (very similar to a mk 20) device.

A Mousetrap projector similar to the Mark 20, but with eight rails, organized as four over four. Fired a pattern of about 80 yards wide (73 m) at a range of about 300 yards (274 m). 100 of these weapons were in service by November 1942. In addition to smaller craft, twelve Benson (DD-421) class and Gleaves (DD-423) class destroyers were each fitted with three of these projectors on the forecastle forward of the first 5"/38 (12.7 cm) mount. One of these destroyers, USS Turner DD-648, blew up and sank off Ambrose Light (Lower New York Bay) on 3 January 1944, killing 138 crewmen. The loss was attributed to Mousetrap projectiles with faulty contact fuzes.

source

[Kull]

The load cost is bugged for Mousetraps and Hedgehogs. Should not be "9999".

Edit: Apparently it should be "65":

ORIGINAL: vettim89

There was a database error in the original GC scenario that was carried through to yours. Basically device 1736 Mousetrap Mk 20 has a load cost of 9999 when it should be 65.

Edit2: Or maybe not. Apparently "9999" is the number used for "fixed weapons that load ammo like normal guns". And as a result, "a value of 9999 is usually used in this game to cause a branch out of the normal routine to a special routine."

I know from experience that Mousetraps do reload, but exactly what the magic numbers are, well...no idea. Some discussion on this topic here.

[Alfred]

For scenario #4, to rearm the Mousetrap device (device #1736 or #1737), you need the following undamaged port levels.

Level 10
Level 9 with 700 Naval Support squads present
Level 8 with 800 Naval Support squads present
Level 7 with 900 Naval Support squads present

Smaller ports will need as a minimum 1860+ Naval Support squads present which is completely impracticable.

Of course the rearming rules is only part of the equation. You also need sufficient supply present to pay the rearming cost.

AE changed significantly the naval rearming rules which applied in classical WITP. The basic philosophical approach in AE is the rearm cost is 2x effect of the weapon, not the load cost which was the metric employed in classical WITP. However, in AE the rearming algorithms were left largely untouched. Hence the actual rearming metrics employed are:

Torpedoes, depth charges, and mines, the rearm cost = weapon load cost
Guns (which is everything else), the rearm cost = 2 x weapon effect

To properly implement the new AE rearming philosophy without altering significantly the existing algorithms, required the load cost of torpedoes, depth charges and mines to be recalculated (after taking into account other relevant code considerations) to approximately 2 x the weapon effect. Hence scenario #1 has a load cost of 65 for the Mousetrap. Note the subsequent DeBabes scenarios have increased the load cost up to 140.

Scenario #4 was basically ported over from classical WITP. It has a few elements which were never properly recalibrated to the newer AE standards. It is one of the main reasons why I never, ever recommend new players start off their AE gaming experience with scenario #4.

Alfred

[Kull]

That's interesting, thanks for clarifying, Alfred! Worth noting that Andy's new scenario updates (at least the ones I've looked at) use the 140 load cost from DaBabes