Surface interdiction

[ncc1701e]

Am I the only one to find that Surface Interdiction is overpowered?

In particular, a stack of BB with Torpedo specialty is just devastating.

---

Torpedo BB.JPG (119.88 KiB) Viewed 1464 times

[stjeand]

Well not having any escorts with your fleet is never good.

DDs are the screens. BBs are slow and do not avoid torpedoes all that well.


But would have to test that.

[AlvaroSousa]

its 1942. Yea you will have a tough time.

[ncc1701e]

I am the Japanese...

[AlvaroSousa]

Look at your effectiveness at sea. It might be real low.

[ncc1701e]

No, I am the Japanese and I am attacking the USA. I don't know the effectiveness level of USA here indeed.

This is just that I have a naval stack of 4 x BB and 2 x CA against this USA stack of 4 x BB and 2 x CA.
In my stack, I have 1 x BB and 2 x CA with Torpedo specialty.

I am moving near them in Fleet mode. I assume the other fleet was in Fleet mode too since a Surface Interdiction was triggered.

And, the end result of this Surface Interdiction was:

1 x CA sunk for Japan

* * * VS * * *

3 x BB and 2 x CA sunk for USA

Is it not a little too much? Thus, my initial question about Surface Interdiction that is too good.

[ncc1701e]

Even Carrier Interdiction is doing less damage. I wonder if this is not the 10 value for surface combat on BB.

[ncc1701e]

I have done more hotseat tests to try to understand. This does not come from the effectiveness level.

I am moving a fleet 100% effectiveness, 60% experience at this location.

---

Surface interdiction test 1.JPG (142.85 KiB) Viewed 1359 times

Fleet of 4 x BB, 1 x CA and 1 x DD. No Torpedo specialty.

---

Surface interdiction test 2.JPG (90.9 KiB) Viewed 1359 times

[ncc1701e]

Now, on Japanese side, I am moving a fleet of 4 x BB, 1 x CA and 1 x DD at this location.
Fleet is at 99% effectiveness and 60% experience.

1 x BB has the Torpedo specialty.
1 x CA has the Torpedo specialty.

---

Surface interdiction test 3.JPG (137.65 KiB) Viewed 1356 times

[ncc1701e]

Bing, a devastating naval battle for USA. Please confirm, the Torpedo specialty is applicable to the ship owning it or to the whole stack of ships? I mean the possible first attack.

In the manual, it says Torpedo - possible 1st strike attack with 2 strength.

Possible meaning a percentage of chance it does not occur?
2 strength attack for all the ships in the naval stack or just the ship owning it?

Result: no ship sunk for Japan - 2 x BB, 1 x CA and 1 x DD sunk for USA.

---

Surface interdiction test 4.JPG (95.5 KiB) Viewed 1351 times

[ncc1701e]

Now doing the same thing but USA is moving last. Same fleets on both side. The Surface Interdiction is triggered on the USA side now. Again, no Torpedo specialty in the USA stack.

Results seem more balanced. But, this is not logical.

Why when Defender launches torpedos... (or torpedoes?), results are devastating?
Why when Attacker launches torpedos... (or torpedoes?), results are more balanced?

In all these cases, this is the same Japanese stack with Torpedo specialty.

1st try:

---

Surface interdiction test 5.JPG (108.58 KiB) Viewed 1349 times

2nd try:

---

Surface interdiction test 6.JPG (111.69 KiB) Viewed 1349 times

[ncc1701e]

Now, I am adding Torpedo specialty to the USA naval stack in the first BB ship.

And it seems that the losses are bigger for the attackers, here the Japanese. Two Japanese ships sunk: 1 x BB and 1 x CA.
And no ship sunk for the USA.

Is it not the Torpedo specialty that is too powerful finally, when defenders trigger it? Even if the Japanese naval stack has also Torpedo specialty for one BB and one CA.

---

Surface interdiction test 7.JPG (111.73 KiB) Viewed 1344 times

[YueJin]

Torpedo is by far the most powerful specialisation in the game and it's not even close. I've been putting it on every battleship group as both the Japanese and Allies. The bread and butter of naval combat in the game is trying to force your opponent into leaving ships on fleet mode through blockading/breaking then punishing that with powerful surface groups. Battleships with torpedoes are by far the most effective at this often wiping out whole stacks before they can fire back.

Apart from an ace on a fighter group to get very efficient trades and a couple of heavy artillery on the most important land units I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't just keep putting torpedoes on everything.

[stjeand]

Well first...
Torpedo should not be allowed to be on a BB, CV or CA.

They were used on DD and CL, and I have read of a few CA that may have had the torpedo.

Is it as useful on a Sub group?
Honestly that is where it would expected to be used most.
But from what I had seen in the past subs in WPP were horrible against surface ships.

[ncc1701e]

Well first...
Torpedo should not be allowed to be on a BB, CV or CA.

Well if the code activates the Torpedo attack for all the ships in the stack, despite only one ship has it, it won't change anything.

[ncc1701e]

Is it as useful on a Sub group?
Honestly that is where it would expected to be used most.
But from what I had seen in the past subs in WPP were horrible against surface ships.

Did you try on US subs? The Mark 14 torpedo was terrible. Thus, surface combat value for US subs reflect this.

[Technopiper]

Well first...
Torpedo should not be allowed to be on a BB, CV or CA.

They were used on DD and CL, and I have read of a few CA that may have had the torpedo.

All Japanese CA had torpedoes. Nelson-class BB had torpedoes, too. One even claimed a hit on the Bismarck. Torpedoes may or may not have been removed from them later on, sources disagree from each other.

of course as ncc pointed out, it won't change anything with the current rules.

[stjeand]

I guess the test will be give 1 ship torpedo in the stack and see...

If that is the case then every stack should have just one ship with torpedo and once both sides have that is means nothing.


Also if 2 BBs out of 50 have torpedoes does not mean it should be made so for all sides.

I read a few times that US pilots after their plane was hit would try to crash into enemy ships...does that mean we should allow the US to have kamikazes?

All I was saying was to limit what units can have torpedoes...that would be a start.

Though if the whole thing is broken it won't matter.

[Platoonist]

Did you try on US subs? The Mark 14 torpedo was terrible. Thus, surface combat value for US subs reflect this.

The torpedoes used by US surface ships and torpedo planes suffered from many of the same defects that plagued the Mark 14. Aside from the old Mark 10 used by the aging S-boat fleet, USN torpedoes were riddled with flaws that didn't get ironed out until about mid to late 1943.

Probably the prime example was that during the 1942 battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, US destroyers attempted to scuttle the stricken carrier Hornet, with Mark 15 torpedoes. Two US destroyers slammed sixteen torpedoes into the burning and stationary Hornet but still failed to sink her. After they fled, the approaching Japanese finally put her down with their more functional torpedoes.

[ncc1701e]

Probably the prime example was that during the 1942 battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, US destroyers attempted to scuttle the stricken carrier Hornet, with Mark 15 torpedoes. Two US destroyers slammed sixteen torpedoes into the burning and stationary Hornet but still failed to sink her. After they fled, the approaching Japanese finally put her down with their more functional torpedoes.

Thanks, I didn't know about this story.