What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[Joel Billings]

We are trying to decide what kind of ammo limit to place on carrier aircraft (if any). We have 3 choices. One is to have each aircraft carrying bombs/torps on a strike mission subtract 1 ammo point from a generic "strike aircraft ordinance" that each carrier would keep track of. The second option is to set up different ammo types depending on the plane type and ammo being used. If a called for ammo was not available then the aircraft would have to load out with a different ammo (example: a torpedo bomber would be forced to carry GP bombs as if it was at extended range if there were no torpedo ammo left on board its carrier). We would have torpedos, AP bombs, GP bombs, and special (large) AP bombs carried by torpedo bombers attacking ports. The final option is to leave things alone and have no ammo limit. Option 1 will not be too hard to implement if that's decided on. Option 2 will be more work, but Gary thinks it is doable.

[mbatch729]

I voted for the separate types, but even just ammo points would be an improvement. Of course, this may open the "selecting loadout" can of worms again...[:-]

[Nomad]

I voted for the 4 ammo types also, but if something isn't done about a CV TF launching every aircraft against even on AP then none would be the best.

[Xargun]

The only problem I have with the 4 types may come from my not knowing much about the different types of ammo.. But aren't all bombs basically the same ? Whether they are used to attack ground targets or ships ? I mean whats the difference between a hardened aircraft hangar and a DD hull ?
The Torpedoes I completely understand..

Xargun

[Dunedain]

Xargun: It makes a lot of difference when dealing with large capital ships, which are plenty tougher than a destroyer.

[Rendova]

I voted for the 4 types. I agree that there are no perfect options but this will allow for the most realistic option.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I voted for the 4 ammo types also, but if something isn't done about a CV TF launching every aircraft against even on AP then none would be the best.

There won't be any more control added to the bomb load outs and I can't say that we will improve the overkill mentioned here (although I thought Gary did try to put something in to prevent overkill, it might not be working as well as you would like). Keep this in mind when voting.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

If a called for ammo was not available then the aircraft would have to load out with a different ammo (example: a torpedo bomber would be forced to carry GP bombs as if it was at extended range if there were no torpedo ammo left on board its carrier).

I would like to point out that what generally made a strike "extended range" for a Torpedo Bomber was to exceed the distance at which it could carry and make attacks
with a torpedo.. At "extended range, it was a "level" or at best a "glide" bomber---the
range increase coming from a lighter load with less drag and the ability to maintain a
more effecient flight altitude for more of the operation.

I'm the vote for a single type of ammunition. Four would be great if this were a more
tactical game, but at the command level we're playing it's too much of a good thing.
Like whether or not the torpedo that hit your ship was a "Kaitan". Does it matter? You
have a damaged or sunk ship---could have been rammed by a "kamikaze porpoise" for
all the real difference it makes. Let Gary work on getting a more accuratly modeled
search engine, or land combat module, or something that really needs fixing.

[Damien Thorn]

Hey Joel,

While we're on the topic of "fixing" ammo issues.... how about this idea for sub ammo.

I may have a quick way to simulate firing less than a "full spread" without making the ammo book-keeping any more complicated.

When a sub (or surface ship I guess) fires at a target the computer should decide how many torpedoes it fires from 1 to full spread. Then, instead of automatically taking one point away from torpedo ammo it should have a % chance to take away one point of ammo based on the same % of torpedoes fired. Over time that will average out to the same thing as keeping track of indivual torpedoes without the extra book keeping.

Example: A gato class sub (6 torpedo tubes forward) comes upon an AK and decides to fire 2 torpedoes. The chance of the sub losing a point of torpedo ammo would be 2/6 or 33.3%

[Oleg Mastruko]

I voted "4 types" though I really think it all comes down to 2 types - toprs/bombs.

I'll re post my suggestion here.

Instead of having 4 types of ammo, I think 2 would suffice - just bombs and torps. Based on the info that surfaced in that other thread, there was only one serious tactical consideration, and that's running out of torps (especially for early war IJN CVs). So, when torp planes expend all their torps (and if they survive long enough to be sent on subsequent strikes) they swicth to whatever bombload is planned for them (800 kg bomb for Kates I suppose).

I see no real need to differentiate among various bomb types, but I see need to differentiate between bombs and torps.

What do you say?

O.

[Nomad]

Then change my vote from 4 to none. Without reining in the excessive sorties flown ammo limits are not worth it.

[pasternakski]

I think I'm going to be sick and tired of this game long before it is ever published.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I think I'm going to be sick and tired of this game long before it is ever published.

PROBABLY NOT. But like the rest of us, you may be sick and tired of discussing it.
I figure the game's actual arrival should be good for maybe a two week hiatus in
the forumns---and then followed with a new burst of "this is what's wrong with" threads.

[Brady]

4 types Is what I voted for, It realy seams the best way to represent the consumption of ordance, and will put some restrictions on how air ops are undertaken, and hopefully lead to the consideration of implementing, perhaps in a future patch the selection of load outs for planes in the game, at the very least the posabality of selecting a Non Torp Naval atack option for torpedo bombers.

[Reichenberg]

I vote for the 4 different kinds of ammunition - but with one restriction to my vote: Count it only, if you will get a message when one air group does not attack with the best possible weapon!

E.g. you set all the torp bombers in a task force to naval attack (like in UV with the option 'set all torp bombers in this task force') and one air group can only attack with AP-bombs. Than I would like to get a message like: 'Air group xyz does not attack with best loadout' or alike. Same counts for the beginning of each turn with units out of their 'first choice' of ammunition: If they have flown a sortie and have used the last of this specific ordinance I want a message telling me that!!

There is nothing more annoying than having to scan thru all the CV TF and checking the loadouts of each air group to prevent valuable Kates from attacking CV or BB with AP-bombs instead of torpedos.

Uwe

[Drex]

Ivoted to keep it simple- one type. this game will be complicated as it is. I don't want to screw around with loadouts.

[decourcy]

Hi all,

I voted for one ammo type but i feel that two (bombs/torpedoes)
would be the 'best' solution.
reference:

The ordnance for SHOKAKU's air group included 45 Type 91 aerial torpedoes. Nine torpedoes
could be handled simultaneously on the torpedo-arming platform. The ship also carried
sixty 800kg bombs, sixty 500kg bombs, three hundred-and-twelve 250kg bombs, five hundred-and-
twenty-eight 60kg bombs, as well as forty-eight 30kg bombs. There was one hoist for
large and one for smaller-caliber bombs.

ps. Pasternakski, why are you here? All you do is post 2069 posts of bitching and moaning. Gary, Joel, and the others at Matrix are creating a game that fufills most of our desires and wishes. They do not have to do this as i suspect almost any other job would be more financially rewarding. They do not need any more frustration from people like you! Go away if you hate the game!

Michael

[pasternakski]

Second that - simple and at the appropriate level of command. I'm either Hirohito/Tojo or some combination of Chiang, Winnie, Frank, and others, and I'm down here on the hangar deck giving personal orders to arming crews on which bombs to attach to each frickin' plane? Please!

ORIGINAL: Drex

Ivoted to keep it simple- one type. this game will be complicated as it is. I don't want to screw around with loadouts.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Drex
I don't want to screw around with loadouts.

If you don't want to screw around with loadouts, do not screw around with loadouts, but there must be an option for those who want to screw around with loadouts, the availability of a certain option doesn’t force anyone to use this option, it’s not mandatory. This is the matter of choice, and I think it’s not wise to get rid of ability to choose.

[Drex]

Of course Subchaser, we're only voicing our opinions here but will I be penalized in the game if I choose not to specify a particlar ammo? Does the fact that choosing bombs over torpedoes give that player an advantage over the other. If it does, then I have to choose loads and don't get a choice.