Matrix Games Forums

I think you're taking things way too personally Pauk.

Your experiences are your own. I am quite sure that every combat result you posted, you did experience. My point was only that folks should post -ALL- combat results to give a meaningful sample that demonstrates...

a. How often do you use/encounter PTs? More encounters will afford more opportunities for peculiar results. They also lend more opportunities for boring results. It's important to see the entire sample, so that an objective conclusion can be reached. You can also presume that as the game enters 1943, when PTs become more numerous, that you'll see more actions with PTs.

b. If someone had relatively few actions, and many (subjective) of them were lop-sided such that capital ships where being sunk left and right by PTs, it -would- reflect an issue. But again, without the ENTIRE sample, posting a few isloated windows merely skews the data. You have an excellent long-running AAR going on the board, which I'm guessing has every combat result available to you. I don't doubt your results. Help the entire community by posting the entire result set.

c. Showing all the engagments also shows how the PTs are being used, and whether the results are comparable to those of other If you see lots of battles of 25x PTs TFs, it would be inappropriate to compare those results to mine (no more than 6x PTs per TF, nor more 2x TFs). But all the same, it would actually be -very- valuable if someone was able to post (all) combat reports when using 25x PT TFs. It -would- be useful to demonstrate if this "tactic" is truely problematic for the game engine (I suspect that it would be). But again, without a large sample, isolated results are meaningless.

-F-

Ok, this is a way we should both correspodent.

I'm well aware that experience differes a lot. I know what makes PTs so efficient (or ineffcient):


1. crew experience
2. radar
3. dice roll.

In the early stage of the war, radar isn't available for the PTs. PTs have low experience and everything depends on the dice roll.

So, i trust when folks says "PTs are overpovered" or "PTs aren't even annoyance". Some folks got bad dice rolls some got good dice rolls. I do not say this is right or wrong. This is how the game works and i can live with that.

After mid 43 PTs are upgraded with radar and crew is highly experienced. This makes PTs extremely dangerous opponent and i belive a super weapon (you will understand that i won't make any such experiments in my game to confirm my expression - simply can not affort to lost any of my remaining DDs[:)])

Still, i have impression that this is too much - we have only limited examples from the history (Suriago strait) what happend with these radar equipped boats in the surface battles. Also, i have limited knowledge about allied radar instaled on PTs but from what i know this type wasn't so efficient.

I do not asking for being able to turn allied bases in the dust with naval bombardment in the 43....but i want some flexibility.

I believe that Allies can respond to Combined fleet in the 43 - they should have sufficient force to for the defending key bases. But right now all you can have to do is to put moderate CAP and 12 PTs at the certain base and you are safe. That is why i feel PTs are overpovered.

Allies have plenty of choices for defending their bases - surface TFs, CVs, LBAs from the supporting bases, but they don't need do that - combination of several fighers and PTs will ruin all your plans. And that is why i feels this isn't right.

As for my experience: would like to count all encounters but going through 35 pages is quite hectic... Must admit that i had few battles where my DDs slaughtered PTs for no losses on my side (that was before upgrade). But they served their purpose - naval bombardment didn't worked. I can say that we had "PT battles" in the start of the game, then a very few after march 42 and more in 1943. But don't think we had enormous number of engagements. Perhaps it is my impression, Andy can help here....

Your rule max 2x6 PTs in the hex is more than reasonable, but i've lost 4 DDs to 12 PTs.

in my game i stopped visiting bases covered by PT - i had always big headache after battles and losses were not adequate to any gains from missions 

Our PT Boat battles have really been in two phases is my recollection unfortunately I have not posted all my results so I cannot go through every combat.
 
1. DEI/PI phase where the 10 - 12 US PT Boats and the (10??) Dutch ones operated - in these battles my PT Boats did pretty well the Dutch ones I dont recall doing a hell of a lot but the US Boats operating in quite small TF's helped to sink or damage a lot of ships resulting in the last 3 or 4 having very very high experience by the time you finally sank them around Timor - they were especially good at finishing off crippled IJN DD's from the surface battles around Celebes and near the PI.
 
2. Tarawa and environs after my Gilberts attack - I deployed several PT Boat flotillas to try and defend my bases because I wanted to avoid Bombardments but save my surface fleet for future operations - I dont recall much action because you were busy at Perth at the time. I think zeroes sank most of them.
 
3. PM/Gili Gili Again I deployed PT boats to defend my bases to prevent shoot and scoot bombardments (after discussion of limits) acked up by a CL led DD flotilla at PM.
 
4. Recently I have posted several flotillas to Dodobura/Buna on a rotating basis using Gili Gili as their primary base.
 
I suspect most of the DD Casualties suffered by the IJN happened in our game ocurred as part of 1 as I think POW caught and destroyed a DD flotilla of yours at kendari and the PT Boats did the clean up.
 
This is all based on my memory I will look over my AAR tonight but I have to admit its not that detailed.
 
Andy

Pauk, I am not saying that YOU exaggerated the results, I am saying that THE GAME exaggerates the results in many combat calculations. Look at large A2A battles. Does anyone believe that 75 of 78 planes involved on one side would be lost in a single combat on a regular basis? Does anyone believe that a BB TF would only sink a single PC in a TF of 1 PC and 12 AKs?

We have to accept the exaggerated results the game gives us, because - I believe - that overall the game balances things out. I do not wish to see any single form of combat castrated because it occaisionally gives us exaggerated results.

If anything regarding the naval model is overpowered I'd say it is amphibious TFs. Rarely does one get wiped out by surface combat TFs despite a minimal escort, and I'd hazard 99% of these TFs are rammed onto the beaches to offload their troops in suicide like missions, all because the model does absolutely nothing to address issues like actual durability of these vessels, TF disruption, TF morale, loading and unloading rates etc.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Pauk, I am not saying that YOU exaggerated the results, I am saying that THE GAME exaggerates the results in many combat calculations. Look at large A2A battles. Does anyone believe that 75 of 78 planes involved on one side would be lost in a single combat on a regular basis? Does anyone believe that a BB TF would only sink a single PC in a TF of 1 PC and 12 AKs?

We have to accept the exaggerated results the game gives us, because - I believe - that overall the game balances things out. I do not wish to see any single form of combat castrated because it occaisionally gives us exaggerated results.

Why should we have to accept these results? I for one think that after being in the business of creating these games for over twenty five years the designers should put some effort into improving the models over time and through various releases instead of cashing in on regurgitated concepts and code.[:@] The naval conbat models in WITP are basically identical to the one which was used in the old DOS games like Guadalcanal Campaign and Bomb Alley. One would think that some of the profits made from earlier releases would go into gradually improving the design.

One would think that some of the profits made from earlier releases would go into gradually improving the design.

And people say you are a pessimist - sounds like cock-eyed optimism to me... [:D] [:'(]

Ok, so the main problem would appear to be how to handle the little buggers; meaning coming up with appropriate methods for their deployment and creation.

I will admit that early on, I was "creative" in their spawning; amphibious landing going on, hey I have plenty of supplies on AK's <press the button>, voila, 12 PT's to help defend landing out of virtual thin air. My opponent said, "where the heck did they come from?", told him; he replied, "How would that seem to you in my position?" Thought it over, came up with modified deployment/usage that follows.

1. PT only created at size 9 or 10 ports. If AGP present, size 6+ port allowed to create.
2. Basing - port size dictates the number of PT that call that port home; 4 PT per port size, AGP present increases that by 2 port sizes.
3. PT sit at bases; can go out up to 3 hexes, but only on retire; bringing them home during the day.

That's basically it for me. The main change is the creation; having to make them in a rear area port and then have them "follow" another TF (usually freighters) to their destination is a real pain. Additionally, at weaker bases, they can't get their reloads unless support is there; making the support (AGP) the vulnerable target. Otherwise, they have to sail back to reload their torpedoes.

This method eliminates the "Palmyra" type situations, of creating them in these tiny bases with immediate results. In my game, I have PT's in the Marshalls, at Kwaj and Majuro; they had to sail in from PH with a reinforcement convoy to get there. There is a AGP in the area to provide support, but any more PT's still have to come out of PH, as there is no size 6 port in the Marshalls. So, any losses would be very difficult to come up with replacements for a long time.

Now, major bases are a different creature; Darwin and Rangoon (Oct '43) are crawling with them, and CD, and A/C and fortifications.....but, if they were out from under their aircover...they would be toast, dead, RIP, kaput, etc....

I create them on the West Coast and have them follow supply convoys to their destinations. Bit of a pain but keeps the opponents from having a justifiable reason to complain.

I'm wondering why no one has noticed the greatest ahistorical part of this entire controversy over PT's?

We have seen the numbers now - a grand total of USN 26 PTs lost during the entire lousy war. And that includes two who's tanker was sunk with them in transit.
The mighty Imperial Japanese Navy managed to destroy a whopping 5 PT Boats by direct engagement during the course of the entire war... Whoop dee do.
The Majestic Japanese Air Forces actually got 5 themselves! (why, they actually sank one by strafing during the war! wow!) Not counting two more to kamikaze's.

Yep, the Japs really tore those little boats apart!

Yet in the AARs posted, PT's are routinely knocked off like flies??

Maybe PT's will kill a few more Jap ships than they did historically, because players keep running their warships in harms way...

But what really jumps out at me is - PT Boat survival in the game is WAY TOO LOW!!

Why hasn't anyone noticed that?

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I'm wondering why no one has noticed the greatest ahistorical part of this entire controversy over PT's?

We have seen the numbers now - a grand total of USN 26 PTs lost during the entire lousy war. And that includes two who's tanker was sunk with them in transit.
The mighty Imperial Japanese Navy managed to destroy a whopping 5 PT Boats by direct engagement during the course of the entire war... Whoop dee do.
The Majestic Japanese Air Forces actually got 5 themselves! (why, they actually sank one by strafing during the war! wow!) Not counting two more to kamikaze's.

Yep, the Japs really tore those little boats apart!

Yet in the AARs posted, PT's are routinely knocked off like flies??

Maybe PT's will kill a few more Jap ships than they did historically, because players keep running their warships in harms way...

But what really jumps out at me is - PT Boat survival in the game is WAY TOO LOW!!

Why hasn't anyone noticed that?

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

[/quote]

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

[/quote]

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

Sorry to say this, but the cyber "fight" IJA vs IJN a.k.a. Generalissimo Nemo vs Admiralissimo El Cid Again (RHSEOS Mega Team) was much more funny, original & passionate. And more important: it was bile free...

I'd like to throw some pop corn from the cheap seats but your show is pathetic. JFB? AFB? Are you cyber people into Totally Irrelevant & Insignificant Cyber Sects?

P.S.:
cyber bile is still utter absurd.

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

That would make sense if it was established that PTs always ran away from Jap surface forces, but I have read no such thing.

As far as I know, PT's did not hide from every Jap ship they found, quite the contrary.

What we are left with is a game routine that assumes that any contact between PT Boats and Jap surface forces is a regular slugging match that allows the Japs to shoot at PTs as if they were destroyers or bigger. That is why so many more PTs are always lost in a typical game.

In short, the game routines do not take into account how almost impossible it is for a Jap surface ship hit a PT boat. That is why so few PTs were ever lost during the war... not because PTs buggered off and hid until the Japs passed by.

The higher-than-historical amount of Jap DDs lost in the games in question can statistically be laid on the constant exposure players place their ships in. But the ahistorical exchange rate is not a matter of more frequent contact - it's a matter of the game not handling PT survivability meaning - maneuverability and tactics - properly.

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Chicken and the egg...perhaps if Allied players stopped using PT's as battlefleets and instead ran away if there was a suggestion of a dedicated surface hunter killer group the Allies wouldn't lose so many PT's.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If the PT's would break contact more often vs. a superior SF, then there would be less PT losses....AND, less of the results that people are complaining about.

Then the debate would begin on "what is a superior SF".

That would make sense if it was established that PTs always ran away from Jap surface forces, but I have read no such thing.

As far as I know, PT's did not hide from every Jap ship they found, quite the contrary.

True. However the Japanese rarely went intentionally hunting for PT boats like some players including myself do. Meaning we have a dedicated surface task force just to engage the PT's - mine usually consists of a CL and 4 DD's. Now if I could only remember to set them to Patrol Do Not retire...

What we are left with is a game routine that assumes that any contact between PT Boats and Jap surface forces is a regular slugging match that allows the Japs to shoot at PTs as if they were destroyers or bigger. That is why so many more PTs are always lost in a typical game.

In short, the game routines do not take into account how almost impossible it is for a Jap surface ship hit a PT boat. That is why so few PTs were ever lost during the war... not because PTs buggered off and hid until the Japs passed by.

They may have been harder to hit but the game routine is also causing the PT's to stick around for multiple rounds...instead of shooting and scooting.

The higher-than-historical amount of Jap DDs lost in the games in question can statistically be laid on the constant exposure players place their ships in. But the ahistorical exchange rate is not a matter of more frequent contact - it's a matter of the game not handling PT survivability meaning - maneuverability and tactics - properly.

I would say it is a symptom of both - more frequent contact with dedicated destroyer hunter/killer groups and a mishandling of PT tactics by the game routine....

PT's should be allowed to enter two types of Task Forces - Escort and PT. If in escort they can be issued orders to travel to a new base or destination.

If they are in a PT Task Force - they should be handled similarly to aircraft - be given a particular target hex - be allowed to run day or night missions - then return to base and dock in the same phase - if the player chose to send them out during the day then they would be more vulnerable.

The main issue I will concede on PT Boats is that the operational availablity is to high i.e. they should be more akin to fighter sqns where&nbsp;2 or&nbsp;3 out&nbsp;of an 8&nbsp;boat flotilla is&nbsp;out of service at any one time
&nbsp;
These engines are tempremental !!!!
&nbsp;
I dont really have an issue with the results achieved in game as I agree which char that its a function of increased activity by both sides and I believe PT Boats were very dangerous to Jap DD's and I also have no problem with Tree's suggested TF types
&nbsp;
My issue is that if I had 12 boats at Buna and an AGP only 6 or 8 would be available because the others would be o/s this point is not modelled well in game.
&nbsp;
PT Boats should almost have an if above 5 - 8&nbsp;sys damage may not be used in combat at all for anything type code you can still put them in TF's but they wont move or attack and will be sitting ducks until sys damage is reduced !!!
&nbsp;
Make the modifier of accruing sys damage higher on atolls and enormous on open ocean hexes - i.e. 80% chance of 1&nbsp; sys damage per boat per deep water hex travelled on operations - that would make allied players wary of committing to many to ahistoric raids send all your boats to raid that Jap base 4 hexes away - yup they will get there and back but next&nbsp;week the whole sqn is U/S and the base they came form wide open.
&nbsp;
So make the rate or repair and the rate of sys damage accrual high for the PT Boats to try and reflect the operational fragility of the boats
&nbsp;
Just something to stop them all being available all the time
&nbsp;
That much I would concede is wrong about PT Boats at present - if used defensively in a base where sys damage could be controlled they should be a real detterrent to japanese attacks.
&nbsp;
Andy

Using my example with Pauk - I am rotating PT Boats in and out of Buna and Dobodura with&nbsp;the main base at Gili Gili to rearm trorpedos.
&nbsp;
There should be a resonable chance that if I send&nbsp;2 x 6 Boat&nbsp;flotillas to Buna say and it travels 180 miles then perhaps 3 or 4 of them are U/S for a day or two until they repair after the journey and actually Buna is a low level port so they should have a (50% - 10% x lvl of Port) chance of accruing 1 sys point each day per boat so I will constantly have boats going in and out of commission.
&nbsp;
I should pay a penalty for having to re arm the PT Boats with torps at Gili Gili which I dont really at present except for fuel and sys damage that is relatively meaningless

What kinds of leaders end up in charge of PT TFs? Is it just one of the boat skippers, or do you stick in some fire-eater? That might be one possibility for toning things down for those who feel the need, a house rule saying no auto-leader and no leader replacements for PT TFs. Didn't the boats pretty much operate in treys under overall command of the senior skipper?

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Make the modifier of accruing sys damage higher on atolls and enormous on open ocean hexes - i.e. 80% chance of 1 sys damage per boat per deep water hex travelled on operations - that would make allied players wary of committing to many to ahistoric raids send all your boats to raid that Jap base 4 hexes away - yup they will get there and back but next week the whole sqn is U/S and the base they came form wide open.

So make the rate or repair and the rate of sys damage accrual high for the PT Boats to try and reflect the operational fragility of the boats

Just something to stop them all being available all the time

I agree!