ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"
As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.
Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least. That do to the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.
Given the game is already beta, any major changes threaten the release date. The only turn that Japan can really go to town on this is turn #1, when all defensive strengths are effectively quartered. There are many features already in the game to offer ways of preventing this. As such, while being a sore spot for many, is it worth risking the release date over?
I know what your answer is without you even posting it [:D]
Your guess is correct. No delay in release date[:-] How about simply negateing the turn one surprise effect for ships based at Singapore and Manila for all but a/c set on night attack. Since it was still night when the war started in those locations?
As for this entire discussion of torpedo attacks on ports, we've made the following decision. We will be leaving the game alone. The lack of consensus on this issue along with the strong chance of adding bugs into the game if we try to make a change has convinced me the right move is to do nothing. In the tester forum, our personal favorite new rule developed by Pry and Frag was to only allow torpedo attacks on ships in port if the number of ships in port was greater than the port size times some number (a number that would probably be between 5 and 10). This would represent that if the port was overloaded, not all ships would be in protected anchorages with torpedo netting. I like this rule, but I've been told there is a decent chance of a bug if we try to add this now, and it doesn't seem worth the risk to implement it now. I thank those of you who have participated in this discussion.
Thanks Joel for considering this issue. I think Pry and Frags solution is a good compromise and hope it can be implemented down the road. I also hope you would consider the possibility of implementing a simple max ship limits inside ports as suggested by Ron and myself in a possible future patch as well. Looking forward to the release of the game.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"
As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.
Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least that to do the the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
No one who knows you thinks your a fanboy Timjot. Your posts are always constructive and free of immature taunts such as "Blah Blah Fanboy!"
As such you should know that at this time, the decision has been made to leave things as they are for the time being. (so everyone can stop shouting) I know this wont sit well with you personally but keep in mind the AAR that myself and Pry did. We got to 5/42 and no massive port slaughter occured.
Nik, I do realize the time has passed for new features. I only started this thread when Joel intimated there might be time to implement a change if a case could be made. This discussion has made it evident to me at least that to do the the hex scale, the only way to implement it both realistically and fairly would be to have max limits on ships in port. Of course this would be too involed to include now, but it might be something to consider down the road in a patch. In the meantime Im ok with house rules or simply playing against persons who play realistically.
(EDIT) Never mind just read Joels post.
so we're still on for Operation Darwin? [;)]
I dont know Nik, its kind of a moot strategy if you already know what I am up to, but heck I will give it my best shot. Gonna need sometime playing in the minors before I can take on you major leaguers though.
That is a real debate here. Outside turn 1 results, those attacks would be launched during all the war, istn't it ? When they were only used twice during all WWII. Why ?
Because after Taranto all navies protected their port with nets, except Pearl Harbor that was too shallow.... We know the result here but after that all main USN bases had their nets in place, you can be sure.
So I would say that torpedo attacks in ports (either by land-based mediums or CV planes) should only be used on Dec 7th, 1941, in PH.
Then there is people arguying that only some BB were able to be hit by torpedoes while the other were protected for this and this reason.
OK, is here is my proposal:
_ torpedo attacks against ships disbanded in ports or docked in port of size more than 3 are impossible.
_ but on turn 1, there will be in PH a TF with all ships vulnerable to torpedo attack, not docked, and so a naval attack mission with torpedoes may hit them.
In the Luskan vs Raver turn 1, the USN lost more subs than its the three years of the real WWII.... Never heard of a SS torpedoed in port anytime in history, even if tens of them were bombed in ports.
Also strongly doubting the IJN may have attacked Singapore from the sea on the 8th (turn 1 anyway). The Brits knew they were coming (actually a Catalina was shot down the day before Pearl Harbour, the 7th in this area) and only wandered if they would land in Thailand or Malaya. There were certainly no surprise in Malaya ... except of course the quality of the Japanes planes and crews and the jungle tactics of the infantry.
I dont know Nik, its kind of a moot strategy if you already know what I am up to, but heck I will give it my best shot. Gonna need sometime playing in the minors before I can take on you major leaguers though.
LOL, you make me sound like Mogami. [;)]
Believe me....i'm not nearly so formidable. Have to admit though....having had to spend six game months trying to ship supply to Oz.....the Darwin to SRA strategy would have some challenges though dependant on the Japanese disposition, but succeed. But i dont think it would shorten the war by much if at all vs the historical routes chosen
But it can be/will be cool to test that theory. Thats what this game is all about!
Hi, While there are of course other reasons for not allowing torpedo attacks on ports, I don't think torpedo nets are valid. Not all ports had the static nets (I think this would be a product of size and would require the addition of net tending ships to OB. Ports with a net tender would be protected ports without would not. The nets on ships themselves were proven ineffective prior to 1916. Introducing net layers would allow players to decide where to defend against torpedo attacks. The WW2 torpedo was stronger then what most nets could stop. (Nets deployed by the ships themselves)
There would be plenty of net tending ships so major ports would almost always be imune to torpdo attack. However advanced ports and smaller ports without a net tender would still be vulnerable.
"In 1907 advances in the propelling engines of Whitehead torpedoes doubled the available propelling power of the torpedo and adding about 10 kts to the maximum speed which for the first time was to give them sufficient punch to penetrate net defences. The days of the torpedo net were numbered.
Provision for anti-torpedo nets within the Royal Navy’s capital ship designs continued until 1911 when the KING GEORGE V class (1910 Estimates) were the last to enter service with anti-torpedo nets fitted, and although they were provided for the succeeding class of IRON DUKES (1911 Estimates), they were only fitted to Iron Duke during her trials period and were removed before she commissioned. Nets were discarded in all following designs. Those already fitted in ships were progressively removal from all class but some were retained as late as 1916, even though it was accepted by then that they were of limited value except for moral and as a seamanship evolution to keep ship’s company’s well drilled.
By the outbreak of WW1 torpedo nets had disappeared from all but German and British Navies where they could still be found on many capital ships. At the beginning of the Gallipoli campaign in spring 1915 the pre-dreadnought battleship GOLIATH was torpedoed and sunk by the Turkish torpedo boat MUAVENET whilst engaged in shore bombardment. Then the first U-boat arrived and quickly disposed of the TRIUMPH and MAJESTIC. All three ships had anti-torpedo nets deployed, but these proved no match for latest generation of torpedoes.
The torpedo that sank MAJESTIC passed clear through the nets without being checked. As the ship sank several men were drowned after becoming entangled and trapped in the very nets designed to protect them. Again in the case of HMS TRIUMPH, the nets did not prove effective. According to some reports, at least 2 torpedoes were fired in succession from the submarine against the same part of the net. The first torpedo cut through the netting, and the second passed through the hole made by the first. The ship was hit amidships, capsized after nine minutes, and sank 20 minutes later. Again it was said that a number of men were caught up by the nets when the ship turned over. These reports may not be quite accurate, but it is certain that the TRIUMPH had her nets out and they were ineffective. From this point the Royal Navy had to accept they had no effective defence against the torpedo and finally abandon the centuries old principle of close blockade.
The Germans retained nets until after the Battle of Jutland. However their experiences during the battle were that their vulnerability to shellfire and the possible consequences far out weighed any remaining benefits. Before the end of the war torpedo-nets had disappeared in both in the British and the German Navy. In the event, nets had proved useless at stopping the latest generation of torpedoes and afforded no protection even when the ship was stationary.
EPILOGUE
Advances in torpedo technology soon rendered nets obsolete and with no hope of stopping a hit attention turned to minimising the out come of a hit - hence the torpedo bulge compartmentalisation for large ships. In fact the first proposals for improved internal sub division to minimise the effect of torpedo attack had been made in 1884 - only a few years after the nets themselves were introduced.
Although nets disappeared from ships heavier static nets continued to be used to protect anchorage’s from submarine and torpedo attack throughout both WW1 and WW2 most famous being the 3-tiered nets that protected the TIRPITZ and nearly thwarted the X-Craft attack. The RN policy of using nets to protect anchorage’s continued into the late 50’s when the last dedicated net layer was paid off."
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
1)"* The previous day they wanted to do a torp atack but time would not alow for a rearming of the planes so they went with bombs. "
This was 7th Aug. 42:
"27 Type 1 Rikko of 4th Kokutai made ready at Rabaul to atack a newely discovered airfield at Milne bay, on New Gunies eastern tip. Before they could depart on their mishion, howeaver, crews received the shocking news of enemy landings in the Solomon Islands...
The raid was hastily changed to a search and atack Mishion aganst the US task Force in the Solomons, 560 Nauticle miles from Rabaul. With no time to change ordance to torpedos"
"The formation reached Gudacanal shortly after 1300"
"Having received no information on the location of enemy CV's, Egawa decided to go after a cruizer and other vessels near Guadacanal."
In the area defined as a port in UV.
"The Next Morning* 4th Ku went back properly armed with torpedos" This was Aug. 8(posable9th). "
"With an escort of 15 Rei-sen, the land atackers went after the shiping off Guadacanal...as they droped down to wave top height to begine their runs the aa fire from rear admarial Kelly Turner screaning force of cruisers and destroyers proved absolutly ferocious..."
The USS jarvis was hit by a torpedo, and the Transport USS George F Elliot was hit by a Betty. The Betty lost I beleave 17 of their total number wheich was 23 , from ACk and fighters.
The following morining 16 bettys went out again and found only the Stricken jarvis and sunk her.
"That afternoon the US invashion force had pulled out, thought they had not finished unloading...thuse the following moring: that of the 10th:
"The 10th they went back to hit ships unloading but they had puled out "
"The 12th of Novemeber saw another torpedo atack aganst shiping at Lunga. "
"On 12th of November, under the leadership of Tomo-o Nakamura, 19 Type 1 Rikko, went after a magor US convoy off Lunga."
Their were other Betty anti shiping sorties in the area during the campagine, but these 4 show them atacking ships in the area that was in UV defined as a port. Certainly this is not as black and weight as say the atack on Pearl harbor, but it does show how losely ports are defined in the game system.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
hi Those are attacks against a TF in a port hex but not in the port. Thye are allowed in WITP and use the Naval attack not the Port attack mission.
Lunga is not a port TF's can disband in in UV or WITP before engineers expend supply to expand it. (Thats what makes Tulagi important early on. It is a size 3 port at start but cannot support a decent airfield. The two bases are both required to control the area while Lunga is expanded)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
The TF's in the later examples were unloading for some time(off henderson not Tulgi), and in November after months of ocupation the Allied Enginers would of created at least a size 3 port, again this is very loose.
SCW Beta Support Team
Beta Team Member for:
WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE
Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
Hi, Yes I know they were unloading in a hex that also can contain a port.
In Aug 1942 it is not a port in WITP that TF can disband in. So it is exposed to naval attack.
I don't think the US had built the port of Lunga by Nov 1942. In UV they will. (within a few weeks of landing the engineers and supply)
Here is the deal. A TF is not a port attack. If the target is a TF the port will not defend it and you will have torpedos if in range. You will not damage the port in such attacks. Don't use examples of attacks against TF to justify attacks against ports.
When you attack a port you are not attacking a TF. The game will equip a portion of the aircraft with torpedos (but you will not always get hits) Port attacks will not damage a TF in that hex. Don't use attacks against ports to justify results against TF.
A TF is a group of ships considered to have powerplants on line and able to make headway.
Ships in port are assumed to be cold iron (in major ports the ships are getting power and water from shore rather then making themselves)
You can always tell a ship in port. (It is not part of a TF) Ships in TF can be inside the port
(listed as docked but docked is not a correct discription 100 percent of time. A TF in port is safe from submarine attack if port is over size 3. It is never safe from Naval Attacks (even torpedo aircraft) However ships not part of TF in a port should be assumed to be nested or tied up to pier. There are some who worry about what ship is inboard or outboard not me. All I care about is what attacks these ships are exposed to. Here it is port attack and not Naval attack.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Baah! Pearl Harbor and the attack at Taranto were the only successful battles using torpedo bombers against ships in port during WW2. Both of these operations entailed advanced planning to make them possible. Quit throwing out the one and two plane sorties as examples of this happening all the time in WW2. This should only be considered for a special one turn, or one port affair, period!
Halsey, that's pretty much the way it looks to me, too. It's a bunch of coulda woulda shoulda done it, but they didn't really do it did they, and why not? Because they decided it was not fair? Too effective? No, because it was not do-able.
Joel - thanks for the post concerning this feature of WITP. Lots of good, healthy discussion on these pages and I agree that the game should not be delayed over this one item. Players can work around it if they don't think it is accurate to depicting 'WITP'. Some of the solutions proposed are fine, with Mr Frag's, Mogami's and your possible resolution being A-OK by me. Someone said leaving your ships exposed to bomber attack in port is foolish to start with whether by torpedo or bomb. Now back to the beta testing! [8D]
"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant
I understand the IJN players want this capability to slaughter as many USN ships early in the war. Later on they will wish it wasn't available when US CV TF's with 300+ TBF's and TBM's are strolling around the Pacific in 44 and later.
I understand the IJN players want this capability to slaughter as many USN ships early in the war. Later on they will wish it wasn't available when US CV TF's with 300+ TBF's and TBM's are strolling around the Pacific in 44 and later.
There is no ability to slaughter ships unless you happen to stick them in harms way. It drives me nuts when people come up with these blanket statements.
Mogami sunk 1 of my ships as I fled on turn #2, because I was on a conference call while forming up all my TF's and forgot to issue orders to one of them. I didn't run away on turn #1 which I should point out is completely legitimate should someone care to use this dreaded port attack option. EVERYONE else escaped the fate of this dreaded attack that people keep going on and on about.
Sometimes I want to slap Luskan with his banana for even posting that silly first turn. If Luskan can use Torpedo attacks on port on turn one, then Raver should have formed every ship he owned into task forces and did a "Sir Robin" at both Singapore and PH.
You can't have it both ways. Either both players go full out do whatever you want from game start, or both players accept the historical first turn options presented in the game.
I think Mogami stated it nicely. Surface TF's are fair game in a port. But, can anyone provide any conclusive information showing that air carried torpedo attacks were made against ships docked in port? Except for Taranto and Pearl Harbor, it just didn't happen. Those operations took extensive planning and rehearsals to carry out. That is why they didn't happen all the time.
