What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[Mr.Frag]

U2/Dan is doing WitP turns in just 15 min

[&:][&:][&:]

I think you are missing a few digits there.

Dan might be a demi-god [&o], but you can only click the mouse so fast.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

My opinion would be to keep it simple, with an option that allows players to add a bit more control/detail: ie - have bomb/torp loadouts.

There is no such option - bombs/torps. Here is what we’ve got 1) One ammo type 2) 4 ammo types 3) No Ammo limit, bomb/torp loadouts is close to option #2, and as many people here insist it’s not THAT simple.

With 2 hours per turn, after one hundred turns, and with thousands of ships and aircraft to consider, even the most anal retentive wargame veteran (who often uses a magnifiying glass to study all the little weapon loadout systems for all units in TOAW), may eventually cry "uncle" and want things to be a bit more streamlined. . .[;)]

Well, 2 hours is for the first turn, as I remember U2/Dan is doing WitP turns in just 15 min. Besides that there is a possibility to let AI run some zones of control. Are you going to manage CV air groups on a daily basis? You’re going to use CV raids every week, right? How often do you think CV battles will occur? 1 per week? per month? Count all historical CV battles 1941-1945, then, if there will be more than dozen we shall talk about it.

UV released… well I already don’t remember when it was released, long time ago, and so far I didn't see anybody crying ‘uncle’… on contrary, everybody is asking for this or that little option to see this, to trigger that, to be able to… Yes WitP is incomparably greater by scope, but there are a lot more ways to automate routine.

BTW Sometimes it’s very useful to use magnifying glass, believe me…

Yes, bomb/Torp loadouts are not in the poll, but many here have suggested this very option. It is intended to help the developers.

Dan/U2, to their credit, have been playtesting this game for quite a while, and should be able to play turns rather quickly. But you must remember that the vast majority of gamers who will play this game are casual/average players, and we should not have things so complex as to frustrate them.

And yes, the AI can be assigned tasks. But remember that it is the AI, so let's not swamp the poor thing with a million things to consider.

Cheers!

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


Yes, one can refuel task forces at sea, one can also rearm task forces at sea. Both require extreme coordination on the part of the player as far as maintaining a logistics network and really should work quite nicely for those who can pull it off.

A standard CV force is going to probably be 9+ ships. For each ship to refuel to it's maximum level in one turn, it needs a TK/AO per ship. This means the tanker force supplying fuel has to be at least the size of the Air Combat TF.

A TK/AO TF has a speed of advance of 2/2 compared to the Air Combat TF which will 5/3. Coordinating these two radically different speeds to be in the right place in the right time without having your Replenishment TF sunk by some other enemy action is certainly a challenge. The counter to this is attaching CVE's to protect the Replenishment TF. Now add in the fact the the CVE's also need to bring replacement aircraft to the CV/CVL, now add the fact that submarines will be making a bee-line for this rich collection of ships all in the same general area and you suddenly start thinking that a lot of planning needs to go into place to keep Air Combat TF's on station. It is possible, the USA did it later in the war.

Keep in mind, while refueling, since one gobbles up ops points, ships are reduced to crawl speeds. While all this sounds simple when discussing it in the forum, and wasn't that tough to pull off in UV's small scale with basically only one axis of threat (north-south), it takes new meaning in WitP scale where you are surrounded. Not against it, just do not really see that it will make any real difference to gameplay.

Mr Frag,

Come on are you playing the same game as everyone else? I am not sure that everyone or even anyone is concerned about the potential for the battle of Midway going on for a fortnight of simultaneous strikes [X(] But the existing system can be abused. Easily.

There are lots of places where one side will have a temporary (or longer) advantage. For example if the IJN moves it's CVs into the Indian Ocean. Under the UV system with a few Tankers and Escort switches the japanese CVs would be able to stay on station for a long long time. Half squadrons on Naval strike and half resting. They can last a long time. They could kill everything in one extended stay. Every transport, destroyer, cruiser and battleship. In one campaign lasting just a few weeks. Then they are back in the Pacific with not even a minor Naval threat from the West.

Maybe the Japanese will stay off Pearl Harbour. With unlimited ammo they may lose a lot of planes to Flak and Op losses but when are they going to get a better chance at sinking US ships. Do you want to sink them now when there is little or no CAP (and even that is mostly Buffalos etc.) and the ships have their lowest Flak and Radar values. You have a much better chance of doing damage now than waiting until the US have gathered together their 6 CVs, have the Flak upgrades and everything has Radar.

The Japanese will also appreciate it when the US offensive begins. Even with ammo resupply ships there will still be limits to what can be resupplied. Kamakazi strikes will use up Flak that will need replenishing. As will the repeated bombardment missions. Those resupply ships will be stretched. If the allied player has to plan and juggle to get his results all the better. Let him have that dilema.

As for submarines making a nuisance of themselves, thank god for that [:D] They accounted for a few CVs in the war. I am yet to see them hit one in UV although I dare say it happens. And many players use their CVs a lot compared to history. I certainly don't have my CVs pinned in port for fear of subs in UV under the present system.

I just cannot see why you don't want the rule which seems to add realism as well as improving the choices / dilemas the players have to make. Already I fear that CVs are going to be in almost constant use in the game and this will change the whole feel of the campaigns. This may restrict them a little, and do it in a realistic way [:)] If the programmers have given it the thumbs up why not?

[madflava13]

Hoplosternum-
I agree with just about everything you say. I don't think CVs will be used a whole lot more than was historical however. As the early war Allies, you have a lot of places to defend, and not many carriers to do so. I can forsee players keeping them close to home to cover Pearl/Johnston/Midway etc...

On the flip side, as the defending Japanese player, there's an awful lot of places the Allies can strike once they ramp up their production of ships and ground forces. Again, I can forsee keeping CVs at Truk/Rabaul to protect against incoming invasion fleets...

But like I said, I think you were spot on with the rest of your comments...

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

U2/Dan is doing WitP turns in just 15 min

[&:][&:][&:]

I think you are missing a few digits there.

Dan might be a demi-god [&o], but you can only click the mouse so fast.

ORIGINAL: U2
If you are wondering how long it takes me to do a turn the average is 10-15 minutes (excluding replay) as the USN...for sure the first turn took me 40 minutes but after that it is moving along nicely

Ask Dan for details, okay?

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Yes, bomb/Torp loadouts are not in the poll, but many here have suggested this very option. It is intended to help the developers.

It can be compromise. Anyway it’s better than 1 strike point per sortie.

Dan/U2, to their credit, have been playtesting this game for quite a while, and should be able to play turns rather quickly.

Their? It’s just one person, nick U2 – name Dan, and he has started actual playtesting about a week or two ago.

But you must remember that the vast majority of gamers who will play this game are casual/average players, and we should not have things so complex as to frustrate them.

So complex? You said that bombs/torps is a simple option. 2 ammo types or 4 ammo types, all you have to do is just to keep an eye on ammo status, just like on fuel. What is complex, I can’t understand. If you’re talking about possible option to switch between them, if so, I can only recommend average players to do not use that option. Always torps for TBs.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum
Even with ammo resupply ships there will still be limits to what can be resupplied.

I didn't hear about ammo resupply ships before. This at least gives me a little hope for sustained offensives. But how many of these ammo ships will we have? For example, how many does Japan begin with at the start of the war? If minesweepers were the MVP of UV then I think these things will be worth their weight in gold.

I still like the unlimmited ammo option since I think the current limits of fuel, planes, adn pilots will be enough to limit CV operations.

[Hoplosternum]

Unfortunately Damian I may be making them up [:)] I mean the resupply ships that the allies will have later on in the war. We have been told they will be in. But I am not sure whether they will be able to resupply all ships weapons or be restricted. I assume they will be able to restock all AA weapons at least, but they may not be able to resupply CVs and BB main armaments. So I hope I have not got your hopes up too high [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


Yes, one can refuel task forces at sea, one can also rearm task forces at sea. Both require extreme coordination on the part of the player as far as maintaining a logistics network and really should work quite nicely for those who can pull it off.

A standard CV force is going to probably be 9+ ships. For each ship to refuel to it's maximum level in one turn, it needs a TK/AO per ship. This means the tanker force supplying fuel has to be at least the size of the Air Combat TF.

A TK/AO TF has a speed of advance of 2/2 compared to the Air Combat TF which will 5/3. Coordinating these two radically different speeds to be in the right place in the right time without having your Replenishment TF sunk by some other enemy action is certainly a challenge. The counter to this is attaching CVE's to protect the Replenishment TF. Now add in the fact the the CVE's also need to bring replacement aircraft to the CV/CVL, now add the fact that submarines will be making a bee-line for this rich collection of ships all in the same general area and you suddenly start thinking that a lot of planning needs to go into place to keep Air Combat TF's on station. It is possible, the USA did it later in the war.

Keep in mind, while refueling, since one gobbles up ops points, ships are reduced to crawl speeds. While all this sounds simple when discussing it in the forum, and wasn't that tough to pull off in UV's small scale with basically only one axis of threat (north-south), it takes new meaning in WitP scale where you are surrounded. Not against it, just do not really see that it will make any real difference to gameplay.

Mr Frag,

Come on are you playing the same game as everyone else? I am not sure that everyone or even anyone is concerned about the potential for the battle of Midway going on for a fortnight of simultaneous strikes [X(] But the existing system can be abused. Easily.

There are lots of places where one side will have a temporary (or longer) advantage. For example if the IJN moves it's CVs into the Indian Ocean. Under the UV system with a few Tankers and Escort switches the japanese CVs would be able to stay on station for a long long time. Half squadrons on Naval strike and half resting. They can last a long time. They could kill everything in one extended stay. Every transport, destroyer, cruiser and battleship. In one campaign lasting just a few weeks. Then they are back in the Pacific with not even a minor Naval threat from the West.

Maybe the Japanese will stay off Pearl Harbour. With unlimited ammo they may lose a lot of planes to Flak and Op losses but when are they going to get a better chance at sinking US ships. Do you want to sink them now when there is little or no CAP (and even that is mostly Buffalos etc.) and the ships have their lowest Flak and Radar values. You have a much better chance of doing damage now than waiting until the US have gathered together their 6 CVs, have the Flak upgrades and everything has Radar.

The Japanese will also appreciate it when the US offensive begins. Even with ammo resupply ships there will still be limits to what can be resupplied. Kamakazi strikes will use up Flak that will need replenishing. As will the repeated bombardment missions. Those resupply ships will be stretched. If the allied player has to plan and juggle to get his results all the better. Let him have that dilema.

As for submarines making a nuisance of themselves, thank god for that [:D] They accounted for a few CVs in the war. I am yet to see them hit one in UV although I dare say it happens. And many players use their CVs a lot compared to history. I certainly don't have my CVs pinned in port for fear of subs in UV under the present system.

I just cannot see why you don't want the rule which seems to add realism as well as improving the choices / dilemas the players have to make. Already I fear that CVs are going to be in almost constant use in the game and this will change the whole feel of the campaigns. This may restrict them a little, and do it in a realistic way [:)] If the programmers have given it the thumbs up why not?

I did not say I didn't want it, I just don't see going down the ammo types path as the solution as it entails a whole new level of complication and confusion and most certainly exploitation!

If you allow me to pop a couple of low value ships into the path of your CV's to drain off your torpedoes so I as the USA get to chuckle and laugh as I now bring my CV's into range of your 30kg (chuckling) bombs that can't even penetrate my wooden flight decks, I'll be sure to use it. Japan bombs are poor to say the least. Removing torpedoes as a threat renders Japan into nothing more then floating targets. It is *so* exploitable that I have grave concerns. If done in a manner where the player can practice this tactic, you might as well just drive KB right into Pearl Harbor's CD on Dec 7th because they will be useless.

Japan's only credible weapons system are her Torpedoes. Take that away and whats left? The USA has tasty bombs that make holes and sink ships. I have NEVER seen Japan sink ships without torpedoes being used on anything above a DD.

I am not against limiting CV's being on station. I am against this potential huge exploit called ammo. I am all for limiting CV on station time, but you also have to remember that by the end of '43, the USA kept CV's pretty much on station for the rest of the war so whatever is done has to also be matched with what the USA could do legitimately.

[Brady]

I beleave in WiTP we are going to see the Japanese # 80 bombs employed in more instances, Japan also has 500 KG bombs as well, as the 800KG bombs, as we have sean for the CV Bunker loads these weapons are in plentiful suply aboard CV's, given the means to select torp Off/on for Kates and other Japanese and allied planes we could see these used in greater and more historic frequancy, all these larger Bombs have the potential to adress the bomb effect desparity isue.

[redman1]

I'd be in favor of the 4 types with a guarantee that the overkill problem was fixed, but since no such guarantee can be made - quite the opposite, perhaps - then I voted for the one generic ammo points option.

[Joel Billings]

Thanks for your votes and for the discussion. It raised some good issues for us to think about. We'll have an answer for you in the next few days on what we are going to do. As often happens in cases like this, don't be surprised if the answer is D) None of the Above. [:)]

[Brady]

!......lol:)

[denisonh]

[:)]

[CynicAl]

ORIGINAL: Brady

I beleave in WiTP we are going to see the Japanese # 80 bombs employed in more instances, Japan also has 500 KG bombs as well, as the 800KG bombs... ...all these larger Bombs have the potential to adress the bomb effect desparity isue.

How do you figure that? They're too heavy for the Vals to carry, and the Kates, well... Level bombing is not the most accurate means of attacking maneuvering warships.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you allow me to pop a couple of low value ships into the path of your CV's to drain off your torpedoes so I as the USA get to chuckle and laugh as I now bring my CV's into range of your 30kg (chuckling) bombs that can't even penetrate my wooden flight decks, I'll be sure to use it. Japan bombs are poor to say the least. Removing torpedoes as a threat renders Japan into nothing more then floating targets. It is *so* exploitable that I have grave concerns. If done in a manner where the player can practice this tactic, you might as well just drive KB right into Pearl Harbor's CD on Dec 7th because they will be useless.

Japan's only credible weapons system are her Torpedoes. Take that away and whats left? The USA has tasty bombs that make holes and sink ships. I have NEVER seen Japan sink ships without torpedoes being used on anything above a DD.

I am not against limiting CV's being on station. I am against this potential huge exploit called ammo. I am all for limiting CV on station time, but you also have to remember that by the end of '43, the USA kept CV's pretty much on station for the rest of the war so whatever is done has to also be matched with what the USA could do legitimately.

OK I can accept that there are potential exploits here to, but you still have three strikes of Torpedos. The Japanese bombs are not totally useless (except against Battleships!) and I have certainly sunk cruisers with them. At first I doubted your tale but after checking my games it appears all the CVs went down with Torpedos [;)]. But bombs can certainly damage and knock CVs out of action even if it takes more of them. The Japanese have so many Torpedo bombers that they are likely to get at least one hit on each CV sunk as each requires many hits to put under. However you are not totally toothless without them. The allies cannot safely attack you.

Anyway hopefully Joel et al will come up with a new system that satisfies us all [:)] Yeah right good luck to him on that [;)][:D]

[Rendova]

Another point that I believe should be mentioned is this..... Actual carriers only carried 2-3 strikes worth of torpedoes..... so why would you want more?..... I have seen my bombardment tf waste 16 inchers on barges (and I have seen barges take 3-4 16in shells which, if you think about it, can only be thought of as funny) yet no one is screaming for unlimited ammo for battle ships... Or unlimited fuel for carriers even. Carriers only had a few sorties of ammo on board what is wrong with representing that? and yes maybe the AI has some hairbrained target selection tendencies but that works both ways I have seen the IJN blow the stuffing out of my replenishment TF instead of my CV's only to let me wax his carriers. If your worried about decoys, I have a solution.... sink them...next time they won't get in your way..

[foliveti]

Could World War II carrier aircraft that took off with bombs or torpedoes safely land without dropping them first. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that if they took off with a bomb, they had to drop it before they landed or there was a good chance it could go off when they landed. If this is the case, the fact that you have a bunch of planes going after a single merchant ship and blowing the heck out of it may not be that ahistoric. If they got a bad first sighting report and went after a low priority target they might as well use them on that shipping rather than just drop them in the ocean. My whole premise may be based on vague recolections of old war movies, so if someone has better info, I would like to hear it.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: foliveti

Could World War II carrier aircraft that took off with bombs or torpedoes safely land without dropping them first. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that if they took off with a bomb, they had to drop it before they landed or there was a good chance it could go off when they landed. If this is the case, the fact that you have a bunch of planes going after a single merchant ship and blowing the heck out of it may not be that ahistoric. If they got a bad first sighting report and went after a low priority target they might as well use them on that shipping rather than just drop them in the ocean. My whole premise may be based on vague recolections of old war movies, so if someone has better info, I would like to hear it.

You are correct in more ways then you know actually.

(a) No commander with half a brain is going to allow an armed aircraft to potentially crash land on his flight deck possibly sinking his ship.

and even more importantly but completely overlooked

(b) Range of aircraft presumes it is flying to target, burning off gas on the way then dropping its loadout THEN returning to land (MUCH LIGHTER!). If you wanted to save the loadout, you pretty much have to cut the range of the aircraft accordingly. Taking off fully loaded is a lot less stressful to an aircraft then landing fully loaded on a pitching flight deck. It might be possible under ideal conditions with calm flat seas, but we are talking the Pacific Ocean, not exactly what one would call a swimming pool.

and finally

(c) some planes were fitted with arming systems that allowed the pilot to arm the weapons after taking flight, but planes without this would be armed just before taking off (externally to the pilot) meaning there was no way to safety the weapon after it took off.

[Rendova]

And I don't believe that they did land with ordiance in WWII. In fact if you look at the way a TBD holds the torpedo pointed slightly down.... good lord can you imagine if that thing bounced too hard on landing? Secondly I remeber seeing film of an F6F that landed with a "hung up" 500 lb bomb and upon landing broke loose and went skiding across the deck... needless to say I think some of the crew working on the deck needed to change thier underwear after that one.....

One more thing even today the US carrier planes can takeoff with more weapons then they can land with (although I believe the F/A-18 E "super Hornet" is able to land with a full combat load, but I believe it's the first to do it)