Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
So I will forever be known as the player who got PT boats nerfed [:(]
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
So I will forever be known as the player who got PT boats nerfed [:(]
I didn't say that I agreed with the 200nm offshore intercept, Fishbed. I'm talking about the immediate attack on the platform rather than the use that inherently favors the JFB side of things. It's the same argument used from WiTP (the squeeky wheel gets the oil) for any number of things that got Nerfed unnecessarily.ORIGINAL: Fishbed
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
So I will forever be known as the player who got PT boats nerfed [:(]
I hardly see what makes one a JFB by wanting to nerf the PTs. If the average "AFB" feels comfortable (and fair) with the perspective of sinking a carrier or a BB in early 1942 200 miles from the coast in the middle of nowhere, nice for him. Personally, I'd feel cheated and completely frustrated by some kind of game loophole which would have allowed me to do so.
I didn't put Daks in my signature for nothing: most of the time I play the Allies.
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
So I will forever be known as the player who got PT boats nerfed [:(]
I missed that one. That's laughable: the strike against HMS Eridge happened something like one or two clicks away from the Egyptian shore - the pilot of the craft even came back to the coast SWIMMING - and we're talking about a Decima MAS ops btw, wow that's so representative.
that was probably the very main reason why the HQ was never keen on having them crossing large distances by themselves.
The main reason is that PT's have no staying time. It is necessary very accurate targeting to intercept at limit of range. That is what is unrealistic with PT range.
That is also the problem with all ranges in WITP-AE ships and aircrafts. They allow go to the limit. The problem is that if a PT(or any other ship) goes to an hex at limit of their range it means it is just a small amout of minutes there of a 12 hours game pulse and as such a very small chance of intecept the enemy unless there is stagering precision.
but I will certainly not allow for mid-ocean intercepts 300km away from the coast, especially if the PTs have to come back paddling.
If the average "AFB" feels comfortable (and fair) with the perspective of sinking a carrier or a BB in early 1942 200 miles from the coast in the middle of nowhere, nice for him.
Kull,ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
So I will forever be known as the player who got PT boats nerfed [:(]
Too bad. Right up until that post you were sticking to the facts. If I'm a "JFB", please go read my Aleutians AAR. The Allied ASW is utterly annihilating the Japanese subs. But am I demanding that Allied ASW be nerfed? In that thread or elsewhere? No. The facts are that Allied ASW WAS extremely successful in the Pacific. If the AE results in that scenario appear extreme, I'm confident there's a reason, and it just needs to be explored. But there is nothing ahistorical about successful Allied ASW.
But PT Boats, at least of the US variety, are NOT the same. (And those are the only ones I'm now studying - I will not speak to the others as I haven't looked at ALL the facts.) Search the archives of the entire Pacific War, and you'll see that there were some things they did well, and some they did not. Intercepting and damaging or destroying enemy surface combat task forces was not one of their strengths. Neither was "blue water" combat of any variety. Even their success against large merchant ships is open to debate, simply because they didn't sink very many.
I am NOT making this stuff up. The facts are there for anybody openminded enough to see for themselves.
PT Boats were ridiculously overpowered in the original version of AE. Fortunately it sounds like the patch has dialled them back significantly, and if so, kudos to the developers who listened to facts instead of the all-too-lame "JFB versus AFB" accusations which are explicitly intended to move the debate away from facts and rest it on the shifting sands of emotion. They won't play that game and neither will I.
ORIGINAL: Scott_USN
They are useless now about all I have to say about them. Irrelevant really
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Kull,ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.
Too bad. Right up until that post you were sticking to the facts. If I'm a "JFB", please go read my Aleutians AAR. The Allied ASW is utterly annihilating the Japanese subs. But am I demanding that Allied ASW be nerfed? In that thread or elsewhere? No. The facts are that Allied ASW WAS extremely successful in the Pacific. If the AE results in that scenario appear extreme, I'm confident there's a reason, and it just needs to be explored. But there is nothing ahistorical about successful Allied ASW.
But PT Boats, at least of the US variety, are NOT the same. (And those are the only ones I'm now studying - I will not speak to the others as I haven't looked at ALL the facts.) Search the archives of the entire Pacific War, and you'll see that there were some things they did well, and some they did not. Intercepting and damaging or destroying enemy surface combat task forces was not one of their strengths. Neither was "blue water" combat of any variety. Even their success against large merchant ships is open to debate, simply because they didn't sink very many.
I am NOT making this stuff up. The facts are there for anybody openminded enough to see for themselves.
PT Boats were ridiculously overpowered in the original version of AE. Fortunately it sounds like the patch has dialled them back significantly, and if so, kudos to the developers who listened to facts instead of the all-too-lame "JFB versus AFB" accusations which are explicitly intended to move the debate away from facts and rest it on the shifting sands of emotion. They won't play that game and neither will I.
Sorry for the JFB crack, that was unwarranted.
Your 'shifting sands of emotion' are my game playability issues. Without knowing the coding of how PT boats were 'dialed back' for the patch, the designers attempts to improve playability issues may have resulted in effectively destroying this platform for gameplay purposes.
Witness the chronic back and forth re: naval bombardment efficacy, Betty torpedo attacks, B-17 effect on airfields, the Corsair effect, fleets of ahistorical Tonys, mining, and Uber-cap from the WiTP boards. Many of these issues, because of the heated back and forth on the forums were tinkered with time and time again in WiTP in innumerable patches. For some issues, 'they' didn't ever get them right. The whole effect was an exhausting finger pointing exchange between different fanboy camps at one point or another. The act of 'nerfing' game platforms for playability often has unintended gameplay consequences.
You are consistently bringing up historical fact-that PT boats were not that relevant as surface combatants on larger ships. AND YOU'RE RIGHT from the historical perspective.
My point is that AE is inherently ahistorical from the get go. For those players that select a December 7 start, it's ahistorical beginning December 7, for those that select December 8 as a start date it's ahistorical thereafter. Everything you do as theater commander will be, by definition, ahistorical in this game. Therefore, the 'it didn't happen in history' argument becomes specious after a point. Capability, possibility and potential factors into my decisions every bit as much as history and historical doctrine.
Let's leave aside the 200nm offshore intercept for the time being...that's a little far-fetched and I see your point. But most of the 'Uber PT' complaints that we're hearing are not from 200nm offshore intercepts, so much as intercepts around the shore in the littorals of the PI and DEI.
I've pointed out that I believe that the historical poor performance of PTs against surface combatants was due as much to doctrine, leadership and training as anything else. As theater commander in AE, *I* set doctrine and I can work around training. If these issues are important in the performance of PTs, then I should have no reason to expect that my PT boats should be held to historic constraints on their employ, nor should they be held to historic successes as a benchmark for what they COULD do.
The fact is that no Allied PT flotilla attempted to break up the historic IJ landings in the PIs. My attempts to do so in AE were the first in my AE WWII history. Kind of left me with a sense of 'why didn't the PI commanders give this a try?' versus a 'this never happened therefore it can't happen'. Since no Taiho-class IJN CV ever succumbed to air attack, what does that say about the air vulnerabilities of this class? Since she (Taiho) was built with the carriage of up to 130 aircraft modern aircraft in mind, why should we 'Nerf' her capabilities by restricting her to her historical 56-65 plane carriage of outmoded airframes? Isn't that why we play the game-to find out what we can do differently?
If you have some suggestions for how you'd like the specific performance of the PT 'dialed back', I'm all ears. You think the default crew naval experience of PT 111-123 should be 35 instead of 55? I'm open to hearing your arguement. Too little systems damage by blue water transit-OK, I get you. Penetration of the 0.50 round versus ship hulls? OK-let's look into that further.
"Rediculously overpowered"-come again? I require something more substantive than that in order to base any further product redesigns, knowing the propensity for unintended consequences. Other than the historic, I haven't heard any specific recommendations from you regarding what changes you think warranted that will resolve the perceived issue.
Anyways, I'll wind up here: my experience from WiTP is that these arguments, when they are replete with lack of specifics, are the slippery slope to fanboyism, finger pointing and unintentional consequences. The PTs are my 'straw man' for this. Frankly, I don't give a rip about them, but I don't like the idea of starting to Nerf whole platforms within 30 days of the game release without an eye towards what that will mean for playability and the trend that sets to responding to pleas of woe from a select vocal audience. If WiTP is any barometer, this portends ill for the AE experience.
Alright, 'nuff said already.
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Kull,ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Naw, far too many other JFB fanboys out there with this particular bone to pick to finger you, Fallschirmjager.
Too bad. Right up until that post you were sticking to the facts. If I'm a "JFB", please go read my Aleutians AAR. The Allied ASW is utterly annihilating the Japanese subs. But am I demanding that Allied ASW be nerfed? In that thread or elsewhere? No. The facts are that Allied ASW WAS extremely successful in the Pacific. If the AE results in that scenario appear extreme, I'm confident there's a reason, and it just needs to be explored. But there is nothing ahistorical about successful Allied ASW.
But PT Boats, at least of the US variety, are NOT the same. (And those are the only ones I'm now studying - I will not speak to the others as I haven't looked at ALL the facts.) Search the archives of the entire Pacific War, and you'll see that there were some things they did well, and some they did not. Intercepting and damaging or destroying enemy surface combat task forces was not one of their strengths. Neither was "blue water" combat of any variety. Even their success against large merchant ships is open to debate, simply because they didn't sink very many.
I am NOT making this stuff up. The facts are there for anybody openminded enough to see for themselves.
PT Boats were ridiculously overpowered in the original version of AE. Fortunately it sounds like the patch has dialled them back significantly, and if so, kudos to the developers who listened to facts instead of the all-too-lame "JFB versus AFB" accusations which are explicitly intended to move the debate away from facts and rest it on the shifting sands of emotion. They won't play that game and neither will I.
Sorry for the JFB crack, that was unwarranted.
Your 'shifting sands of emotion' are my game playability issues. Without knowing the coding of how PT boats were 'dialed back' for the patch, the designers attempts to improve playability issues may have resulted in effectively destroying this platform for gameplay purposes.
Witness the chronic back and forth re: naval bombardment efficacy, Betty torpedo attacks, B-17 effect on airfields, the Corsair effect, fleets of ahistorical Tonys, mining, and Uber-cap from the WiTP boards. Many of these issues, because of the heated back and forth on the forums were tinkered with time and time again in WiTP in innumerable patches. For some issues, 'they' didn't ever get them right. The whole effect was an exhausting finger pointing exchange between different fanboy camps at one point or another. The act of 'nerfing' game platforms for playability often has unintended gameplay consequences.
You are consistently bringing up historical fact-that PT boats were not that relevant as surface combatants on larger ships. AND YOU'RE RIGHT from the historical perspective.
My point is that AE is inherently ahistorical from the get go. For those players that select a December 7 start, it's ahistorical beginning December 7, for those that select December 8 as a start date it's ahistorical thereafter. Everything you do as theater commander will be, by definition, ahistorical in this game. Therefore, the 'it didn't happen in history' argument becomes specious after a point. Capability, possibility and potential factors into my decisions every bit as much as history and historical doctrine.
Let's leave aside the 200nm offshore intercept for the time being...that's a little far-fetched and I see your point. But most of the 'Uber PT' complaints that we're hearing are not from 200nm offshore intercepts, so much as intercepts around the shore in the littorals of the PI and DEI.
I've pointed out that I believe that the historical poor performance of PTs against surface combatants was due as much to doctrine, leadership and training as anything else. As theater commander in AE, *I* set doctrine and I can work around training. If these issues are important in the performance of PTs, then I should have no reason to expect that my PT boats should be held to historic constraints on their employ, nor should they be held to historic successes as a benchmark for what they COULD do.
The fact is that no Allied PT flotilla attempted to break up the historic IJ landings in the PIs. My attempts to do so in AE were the first in my AE WWII history. Kind of left me with a sense of 'why didn't the PI commanders give this a try?' versus a 'this never happened therefore it can't happen'. Since no Taiho-class IJN CV ever succumbed to air attack, what does that say about the air vulnerabilities of this class? Since she (Taiho) was built with the carriage of up to 130 aircraft modern aircraft in mind, why should we 'Nerf' her capabilities by restricting her to her historical 56-65 plane carriage of outmoded airframes? Isn't that why we play the game-to find out what we can do differently?
If you have some suggestions for how you'd like the specific performance of the PT 'dialed back', I'm all ears. You think the default crew naval experience of PT 111-123 should be 35 instead of 55? I'm open to hearing your arguement. Too little systems damage by blue water transit-OK, I get you. Penetration of the 0.50 round versus ship hulls? OK-let's look into that further.
"Rediculously overpowered"-come again? I require something more substantive than that in order to base any further product redesigns, knowing the propensity for unintended consequences. Other than the historic, I haven't heard any specific recommendations from you regarding what changes you think warranted that will resolve the perceived issue.
Anyways, I'll wind up here: my experience from WiTP is that these arguments, when they are replete with lack of specifics, are the slippery slope to fanboyism, finger pointing and unintentional consequences. The PTs are my 'straw man' for this. Frankly, I don't give a rip about them, but I don't like the idea of starting to Nerf whole platforms within 30 days of the game release without an eye towards what that will mean for playability and the trend that sets to responding to pleas of woe from a select vocal audience. If WiTP is any barometer, this portends ill for the AE experience.
Alright, 'nuff said already.
Aye, that was the rub for me as well with WiTP. I stopped patching when the attempts to balance 4EB and naval bombardment resulted in these becoming platforms that just weren't worth the time any more.ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Bravo, well said. All too often its nerf this or that because it didnt happen historically without consideration to what the platform potentially could accomplish, yet retrospectively the "possible" isnt a issue for various "other" platforms. Honestly, if PT boats are the main beef for some people im thinking this is getting a bit overboard.
I like what AE have accomplished vis ve WITP, its so much more playable. I just dont have any other words to describe it. IF this ends up being a tug of war between camps I will likely not even patch because I will be afraid of unbalancing the enjoyable experience I have vs someone elses desire to "mold" the game according to thier vision.
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
IF this ends up being a tug of war between camps I will likely not even patch because I will be afraid of unbalancing the enjoyable experience I have vs someone elses desire to "mold" the game according to thier vision.
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
ORIGINAL: Scott_USN
They are useless now about all I have to say about them. Irrelevant really
Really? Not in my campaign they aren't. While they aren't quite the uber-boats they were before the patch, a squadron of PT boats torpedoed two invasion freighters, at night, in the Philippines and escaped with no damage. When the RN MTB's showed up in the daytime, though, the invasion force turned and ran away.
So far they've been performing about how I'd expect rather than sinking everything in sight.
ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager
Also the Fubuki DDs by WW2 were not state of the art. The 12.7 cm/50 Type 3 naval gun had a low rate of fire at 3-7 rounds a minute and since it was a heavy dual mount could only traverse at 6 degrees per second.
These auto cannons would shred a PT boat at 2000-3000 yards
I think this is where the problem is the AA guns are not firing at small targets and they should.
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Sorry for the JFB crack, that was unwarranted.
Your 'shifting sands of emotion' are my game playability issues. Without knowing the coding of how PT boats were 'dialed back' for the patch, the designers attempts to improve playability issues may have resulted in effectively destroying this platform for gameplay purposes.
Witness the chronic back and forth re: naval bombardment efficacy, Betty torpedo attacks, B-17 effect on airfields, the Corsair effect, fleets of ahistorical Tonys, mining, and Uber-cap from the WiTP boards. Many of these issues, because of the heated back and forth on the forums were tinkered with time and time again in WiTP in innumerable patches. For some issues, 'they' didn't ever get them right. The whole effect was an exhausting finger pointing exchange between different fanboy camps at one point or another. The act of 'nerfing' game platforms for playability often has unintended gameplay consequences.
You are consistently bringing up historical fact-that PT boats were not that relevant as surface combatants on larger ships. AND YOU'RE RIGHT from the historical perspective.
My point is that AE is inherently ahistorical from the get go. For those players that select a December 7 start, it's ahistorical beginning December 7, for those that select December 8 as a start date it's ahistorical thereafter. Everything you do as theater commander will be, by definition, ahistorical in this game. Therefore, the 'it didn't happen in history' argument becomes specious after a point. Capability, possibility and potential factors into my decisions every bit as much as history and historical doctrine.
Let's leave aside the 200nm offshore intercept for the time being...that's a little far-fetched and I see your point. But most of the 'Uber PT' complaints that we're hearing are not from 200nm offshore intercepts, so much as intercepts around the shore in the littorals of the PI and DEI.
I've pointed out that I believe that the historical poor performance of PTs against surface combatants was due as much to doctrine, leadership and training as anything else. As theater commander in AE, *I* set doctrine and I can work around training. If these issues are important in the performance of PTs, then I should have no reason to expect that my PT boats should be held to historic constraints on their employ, nor should they be held to historic successes as a benchmark for what they COULD do.
The fact is that no Allied PT flotilla attempted to break up the historic IJ landings in the PIs. My attempts to do so in AE were the first in my AE WWII history. Kind of left me with a sense of 'why didn't the PI commanders give this a try?' versus a 'this never happened therefore it can't happen'. Since no Taiho-class IJN CV ever succumbed to air attack, what does that say about the air vulnerabilities of this class? Since she (Taiho) was built with the carriage of up to 130 aircraft modern aircraft in mind, why should we 'Nerf' her capabilities by restricting her to her historical 56-65 plane carriage of outmoded airframes? Isn't that why we play the game-to find out what we can do differently?
If you have some suggestions for how you'd like the specific performance of the PT 'dialed back', I'm all ears. You think the default crew naval experience of PT 111-123 should be 35 instead of 55? I'm open to hearing your arguement. Too little systems damage by blue water transit-OK, I get you. Penetration of the 0.50 round versus ship hulls? OK-let's look into that further.
"Rediculously overpowered"-come again? I require something more substantive than that in order to base any further product redesigns, knowing the propensity for unintended consequences. Other than the historic, I haven't heard any specific recommendations from you regarding what changes you think warranted that will resolve the perceived issue.
Anyways, I'll wind up here: my experience from WiTP is that these arguments, when they are replete with lack of specifics, are the slippery slope to fanboyism, finger pointing and unintentional consequences. The PTs are my 'straw man' for this. Frankly, I don't give a rip about them, but I don't like the idea of starting to Nerf whole platforms within 30 days of the game release without an eye towards what that will mean for playability and the trend that sets to responding to pleas of woe from a select vocal audience. If WiTP is any barometer, this portends ill for the AE experience.
Alright, 'nuff said already.