Why are the PC(Patrol Craft)s gone?

clouds7 · Post by **clouds7** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:14 pm

Hi, I'm a newbie just beginning to learn Pacwar.
I was making a chart on how many ships i've got in the beginning, with 2.2. then yesterday i got 2.3 and counted again to fix my chart.. and found all PCs gone(there were about 100 PCs or more on each side), US & Jap.
Being so tiny vessels, they might be of just little importance(I lack the knowledge to judge). But with no explanation on the TXT or elsewhere, I can't figure whether it's an accidental mistake or a purposed revision(cause it's not all small a change after all, erasing a whole TYPE of vessels). I don't think Matrix have thought PCs are of no importance at all from the beginning(comparing 2.2 with the original '92 release, PCs are increased and rearranged).
Can anyone tell me why they're all gone?

PS(1): That curious point aside, I just cannot but thank everyone with Matrix for constantly revising this classical masterpiece without neglecting voices of many.
PS(2): Keep on good working on UV and WITP. I'm really lookin' forward to them!

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: clouds7 ]</p>

Soji · Post by **Soji** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:19 pm

I was wondering that as well. They were of great importance to the Allied player because they could cause IJN transport TFs to abort, without much taking much damage from LBA. They were essential for delaying the japanese advance.

Jeff Norton · Post by **Jeff Norton** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:51 pm

They were not modeled accuratly no did they function correctly. Nothing like watching 100+ Bettys firing their MG's and getting single hits. Same way fighing against DD TF's (at least for me).

Guess the remake X'ed them to make more space.

Now, to get more transports to move the US divisions....

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 2:39 am

Hi, Japan got a ton of DE's in replacement.
US got ships too, the big problem was these boat kept ending up being used as deep sea going vessls (going in first to attract reaction and kamikaze ) rather then being tied to short range confined water use.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 10:02 pm

I got rid of USN and IJN MTB's because they were a constant problem of annoyance. They could not be killed by ship or aircraft, and could be used basically as invincible destroyers. You could sent a MTB group of 12 to ANY base and be guaranteed that your enemy's landing force will be repelled, losing at maximum 50% of your MTB's. With many groups of MTB's, you could slow down Japanese advances in 1941 to a standstill, and Allied advances in 1944 as much. Since aircraft use only the MG rating for these vessels, no matter the bomb or cannon rating, MTBs are not the weak vessel that they were, but an uber long distance annoyance vessel.

In reality, MTBs did not sink as much as they were sunk, and since even this cannot be modeled in the game, their inclusion will only serve to mess up the playability.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat Feb 23, 2002 10:17 pm

In 2.4 the PC (now PF's) have been reintroduced, this time in the IJN Type A/B, Type C/D and Hirashima Patrol Vessels. I did this because they are not in the large groups as USN MTB's were, and are better used as ASW escorts then annoyance vessels as well. The Aircraft Strafing rating has been increased as well, so that whenever these ships are attacked by aircraft they will have many casualties.

I changed the Type A/B, Type C/D and Hirashima vessels to PF's instead of DE's because they were not the strong ocean going vessels required in a DE, and also if they were as DE's, then the IJN would get around 200+ DE's during the war! More DE's then the USN! There is a generic ASW value for both PC's and DE/DD's, with DD's being about twice as valuable as PC's, even though PC's do have an ASW rating. This will also represent the haphazard way in which the IJN set up their Maritime Defence.

On a similar note, I am developing some alternate history scenarios, one of which would be what if the Japanese had done what they did in the 19th Century, and watched their European counter-parts during WWI a bit more closely, and copied Britain's convoy system. What would result are more of the old DD's (Kamikaze, Wakatake, etc..) modified to become DE's, along with quicker production of the Type A/B escorts.

clouds7 · Post by **clouds7** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:50 pm

I see. thanks for your kind explanations(and for everyone else)!

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:23 pm

What is the source for your claim that seaborn PTs were sunk more in action than they sank? And in the few actions in which mobile PTs were engaged in combat with a/c, how many were hit by bombs? torpedoes? I see nothing wrong with the air-naval combat results produced by air attacks on PTs. The results duplicated quite well the few historical results.

The problem with PTs blocking invasions is a straw man. In PW the way to overcome a blocking force of PTs is (or rather, was) to use a real surface force (CA, CL and several DDs) to engage them and wipe them out, separately from the IJN invasion TF. In most circumstances the early UK and US PCs and PTs would get mauled. The PTs were useful for blocking the myriads of "invasion on the cheap" IJN TFs comprised of a DD or 2 or a few unescorted transports. That is completely appropriate.

The Allied PCs/PTs should be returned to the OOB. The burden should be on the Japanese player to properly escort his early war TFs.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 7:40 am

No single IJN warship above a destroyer was sunk by a MTB according to my results. I have no record of any major vessel (other than small local transports, which are not modeled in the game anyway) being sunk by an MTB in the Pacific.

I feel that there is no real justification to re-include MTB's, since they are not modeled accurately. I have had MTB's take on surface TF's, and come out with only a maximum of 50% casualties. However, by this period of the battle, all Transport TF's have aborted their mission! Even with surface TF's being sent to bases being invaded the MTB's can divert transport TF's before they are engaged in battle with surface combat TF's. Historically, the Dutch used 12 MTBs to try and stop the landing at Bali, which was protected by two destoryers. They could not even stop this small force.

The Japanese did in fact have 1941-42 invasion forces consisting of only destoryer escort. Also, no matter how many battleships you put into a Transport TF, just one group of MTBs can send it packing.

The problem is, if MTB's were to be accrately modeled, not only would they have to have certain restrictions (range), but there would have to be HUNDREDS of them. The USN, RN, RNN and IJN all used MTBs (all to very little actual effect). The only time I have heard of MTB's playing a role in WWII was the sinking of PT-109.

In regards to air attacks, they COULD be sunk by the much more agile Fighter-Bombers using rockets, and bombs (not just MGs). However, Pacific War uses only the one factor to damage them. Also, a P-36 has as much ability to sink a MTB as a P-38, even though their actual ability was MUCH different.

MTBs are only good for harassing forces, which can act MUCH stronger then they actually are. Their re-inclusion will result in the loss of better and more useful vessels for both sides, ships that had a greater effect on the course of the war, and Pacific War's ability to model it.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Major Tom ]</p>

BigE · Post by **BigE** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 5:16 pm

Major Tom:
Notwithstanding the inability of PacWar to model them accurately, the PT Boats DID have a major effect during several campaigns, notably the Solomons and New Guinea, and even during the Battle of Leyte Gulf; their effectiveness against larger units, of course, was limited, but they sank a couple of destroyers and turned back a number of supply runs to Guadalcanal and other Solomon Islands. Their role, of course, was in isolating the Japanese outposts from barge traffic and other small supply forces, necessitating the employment of more forces than would otherwise have been necessary; but since these small units are not modelled either, they serve no realistic purpose in PacWar. A PBEM game might, with restrictive house rules, make some good use of them -- say employ them in small, ten-ship formations to isolate small island bases from routine supply -- but against the AI, that's no use.
This just to note that PT boats WERE immensely useful during the War, even if that is not reflected properly in PacWar.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 8:11 pm

Major Tom, you have raised a couple of good points. The fact that an a/c's gun value does not affect its ability to hit PCs is a problem. Rockets of course were faster than bombs and harder to evade, but a/c had a real hard time hitting PTs in particular. It was both a problem of size and maneuverability. The PTs could outmaneuver the a/c, spoiling any attack (other than a gun/cannon attack) at the point of munitions release.

It is true that the IJN did conduct many early war landings with minimal escort. These landings could have been opposed by PTs, had any been available in the area. In that event, the PTs would quite likely have severely hampered or even destroyed small invasion convoys that were minimally escorted.

The game allows the Japanese player the strategic flexibility to change the composition of invasion TFs and their destinations (from the historical schedule and composition). Why not also allow the Allied player to put light surface units in the way of such invasions if the Allied player can and will get those units to the area where they are needed?

As to combat results, I guess your experiences have been different from mine. With PC, I have *routinely* had the PTs chewed to bits by IJN TFs (a combination of CL/DD) assigned surface combat duty with the same destination as the APD/AP TF. I do not recall losing more than 50% in a single engagement. I'm not sure that is wrong. PTs were extremely difficult to engage, even by their nemesis, DDs (recall the name comes from "Torpedo Boat *Destroyer*"). BBs ought to have a real difficult time hitting PTs. The DD class was invented to protect capitol ships from torpedo boats specifically because capitol ships could not train upon and hit really fast and agile light surface vessels quickly enough to prevent them from launching torpedoes.

Anyhow, the usual result in GGPW and the matrix variants has been for me that when the IJN player assigns a proper escort to his invasion TFs, the PTs are driven off by the CL-DD group, and the APD/AP group conducts its invasion as needed.

Kadste · Post by **Kadste** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 1:55 am

Is it possible to model the MBT's, PT boats and others as DE type not as PC type. Would this not in effect make them into ships that have a limited offensive value and all the vulnerabilities of the other ships?

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 2:48 am

Their offensive value is already nil. Why make any other changes? The PTs were impossible to torpedo (too shallow draft), bomb (while underway, you could evade watching the bomb release as many PT Lts did), and very difficult to track with any large caliber weapon. That's the whole reason why DDs were invented in the first place.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 3:46 am

Just how many additional IJN DEs were added to the force pool to replace the lost PCs and how many of what tyoe USN, RN ships were added to replace those lost PT groups??? Remember IJN PCs can be used for RCS escorts, while USN PCs cannot.

The last comment was interesting. PTs really were hard to sink. The only way to get a PT boat was either to ram it (PT109 proved that) or hit it with rapid firing weapons like 40mm or smaller cannon/MG, but to be nearly impossible to sink a sibgle ship with a 180 plane strike??? That annoyance, I won't miss.

jerrek · Post by **jerrek** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:33 pm

Yes i can recall many moments of frustration with my waves attacking this when they coul have been doing something useful.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:15 pm

Ranger75. I had different results from GGPW than you. Routine Japanese strikes of say 30 or so a/c tended to shoot up badly at least one PT per strike. It was common for me in several waves to lose 3 or 4 PTs per group, so victimized, per week. None to bombs or torpedoes by the way, and I think that's appropriate. There is an anecdotal account in "Devil Boats" that is marginally interesting here. (In general I hate anecdotes because they tend to get blown out of proportion). Anyhow, the PTs were credited with shooting down a/c roughly in proportino to the PT losses to a/c cannon fire. No bomb hits. The PTs would ultimately have lost because they were getting attritionally damaged, but Allied land based a/c eventually arrived and provided cover for withdrawal.

If you're unhappy with the PT-vs-a/c results in GGPW I suggest, for the sake of argument, that the problem is the way GGPW handles ship damage to "groups of unnamed ships of the same class" (MCS. PTS, SS etc.). The problem for a big strike is that the 1st PT boat in the squadron takes all the hits until sunk. This leaves the rest of the squadron perfectly serviceable for the next week. A better sim would give all the PTs some damage, with the possibility for damage on each boat that would cause the PT equivalent of a "critical hit" .. such as a 20mm round into an engine block that reduces boat speed, thereby making it easier to subsequently hit.