Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: brisd
I think the lesson here is to not venture too close to shore with valuable capital ships.
The lesson is to not play WITP till fixed.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Nobody commented on my PTs as Aircraft idea![;)][&:][:D] Too rich or too late?
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Nobody commented on my PTs as Aircraft idea![;)][&:][:D] Too rich or too late?
Not a bad notion, just a little late. I would speculate that the re-coding would make
it impractical for a "patch". Probably a more realistic "restriction" would be to limit
PT boat anti-shipping efforts to "reaction moves" of maybe 2-3 hexes from a base.
Let them chase barges to their heart's content, but only be able to engage major
surface assets in a short reaction move from an established PT Base. At least that
would keep them from chasing Kido Butai around the ocean.
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.
Are you implying that someone should actually READ your ENTIRE POST??? Next thing
you know you'll be expecting 2by3 to pay attention to these things......
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Check out an earlier post of mine on this thread...it deals with the present model. My query pertained to the last paragraph of that same post.
Are you implying that someone should actually READ your ENTIRE POST??? Next thing
you know you'll be expecting 2by3 to pay attention to these things......
???Whoa, Nellie![;)]
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Once again I think it is a case of wanting to change the game rather then playing practice. If you keep a CV TF 120 miles from an enemy base for 3 days SOMETHING is going to come out at night and want to play. OK so a player who had never played Japan in UV might not know how to deal with PT via air but it was allowed for all 3 days if the groups had been set properly. Divebombers and Torpdeo bombers would not have produced the desired results. (They also do not attack submarines)
The PT boats were built to prevent that type of enemy behaviour. (Camping out in reach)
120 miles is not a problem for a PT and we seem to be assuming the Pacific is always a raging tempest tossed area. (If that were so we would have to assume the CV could not launch aircraft)
Any aircombat TF has escort but in addition when you think the enemy might actually engage with a surface TF you place a surface combat TF with the aircombat TF. This TF will always be engaged before your CV TF is. It is in the code. A surface TF must be attacked before another TF in the same hex with a lower surface combat priority.
The PT will not be effective unless you allow them to be effective and in this case they must be effective or there is no reason to bother including them.
I've been attacked by many PT and yes they have from time to time hit one of my capitol ships. (But I always have a surface TF with any CV TF that I believe there is a remote chance of encountering a enemy surface TF so they have never hit one of my CV) (And none of my CV TF have ever been attacked by an enemy surface TF although surface combat did occur in the same hex)
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
OK, Russ. I've had beer but NO pizza! Therefore, the beer is speaking predominantly.[:D]
PTs are not naval vessels perse, aside from the fact they are Navy manned. One can't assume they are kamikazes. The ability the game gives them presenty is exactly that though. They do not suffer morale checks. They do not travel at 350 miles/hr and can't be "vectored" to a deep sea hex to engage a "vastly superior surface force" in a mid ocean naval engagement if a player decides to loiter 120 miles off shore. Coupled with this is the naval combat model, which includes them as major surface combatants and allows them to trade blows with said "vastly superior surface forces" on not exactly even terms (PTs have the advantage more often than not, as one PT may receive the concentrated fire of defensivce ships while the others a few hundred yards away don't receive any fire) and close to point blank range and fire torps under ideal conditions (like they were subs or DDs with director/TDC control)
Point is ( I'm getting lost) is that it should not be that PLAYERS decide to use flawed forces the way they do, the GAME MECHANICS should limit them (the players) from doing so. This way, there is no need for work arounds and such by the betas which perpetuate and embrace inherent flaws which may OR may not exist.
Ideally however, I believe that the PT model be more drastically revamped. What if PTs were like torpedo plane squadrons rather than naval TFs? PTs are more like planes than ships in WITP, anyway. They would behave more like PTs I bet, and the defensive fire would be more realistic, as all PTs (now aircraft) would be subject to more realistic defensive fire, they would not be pounded incessantly by multiple hits from BB main guns on down (bizarre how the PTs take so much punishment, let alone can be tracked by main battery turrets which seem to swing like the B17 ball turrets), and the balls necessary to drive these suckers is modelled for pilots (morale/fatigue). Size of squadrons will be fixed...say six or so, and so would the number of squadrons (just research the number of historical squadrons in the various navies and voila, a max amount is set), eliminating the possibility of unlimited hordes of PTs.
