Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


the game generally doesn't allow torpedo attacks on ships in port (or has that been
changed..., it's hard to keep up).

If you are refering to "disbanded" ships in port. I believe that is correct, but as far as I know air torpedo attacks on docked ships are still allowed. I am still seeing those Betty & Nells useing their torpedos in Singapore and Manila Naval bases.

I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not)

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

[
I thought torpedo attacks on ships in port were allowed. I don't think there is any difference between ships in port in a task force and those that are not. I mean, both types of ships are still in the water and in the harbor, protected from subs. It seems to be more of a logistical differnece (i.e. "on paper" ship X is in this task force and ship Y sitting next to it is not)

They are. Difference however between attacking TF's and ships in ports (game-wise) is that, assuming full supply and normal range attacks, torpedo capable aircraft will always attack TF's with torpedoes. Against ships in port, torpedo capable aircraft will split between bombs and torpedoes.

Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such.

Nik, correct me if I am wrong but I thought "dispanded" ships in ports are NOT subject to torp attack. The explanation being something on the lines that they are considered protected by torp netting and such.

That used to be the case ... You also could not damage a ship in port. It was the great escape trick ... run for a port and disband.

You no longer have the UV safety net of hiding in a port. Now a port attack (aircraft) will divide it's attention between the actual port facility and ships anchored there. While torpedoes in all ports were not possible, the data to model every port in the game as to whether it could or could not be attacked in such a manner does not exist.

"subject" to torpedo attack is referring to submarine attacks, not air attacks.

Ok, thanks for the heads up. I am happy to see the ole UV anchored ships protected by Magic force field trick done away with. If I understand you correctly "anchored" ships are still not subject to sub attack however. Correct?

I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port.

You mean multiple engined level bombers, right?

ORIGINAL: MikeKraemer

I know this discussion has been previously conducted but name me one incident in WWII where level bombers torpedoed ships in port.

No one is talking about LBA dropping torpedoes Mike, we are talking about torpedo bombers dropping torpedoes. [;)]

maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits.

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

maybe it is dependant upon the version of UV, but in 2.30, i had an incident were my ships did receive bomb hits in port. They were disbanded. They were in port, and they received hits.

Hi,

I think this may still have been hits on the port 'accidently' hitting the ships docked rather than the aircraft specifcally targetting the ships docked there.

Regards,

Steven

With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...

Hi,

Perhaps "anchorage" is more descriptive of Ulithi and Kwajalein than "port".

First post. This is going to be a heckuva game.

all torpedo capable aircraft can launch torps at a port target but it will be a preportion as mentioned between bombs and torps

It is not even that simple. Take for instance ports like Noumea and Efate during '42. There were times that cargo ships lay at anchor for months while they tried to catch up with port handling equipment to be able to unload the goods because the dock's gantry cranes were not big enough to be able to offload the equipment.

These ships were not tied up at the pier unloading, they were sitting at anchor, possibly even outside any submarine netting, ripe for the picking. Yet by our game scope, they would be considered disbanded in port.

There really isn't any global rule that can be applied that suits all cases, even with valid port data unless one took port data coupled *with* ship capacity and came up with a unique system for each port that had three classes of disbanded: (a) At the pier/dock and (b) At the anchorage and (c) outside the anchorage. (a) & (b) would represent ships that had specific restrictions and (c) would fall outside the restriction but there would also be a chance based on the port data that (b) could become a target (ie: deep water, possible long run in for TB aircraft, etc)

ORIGINAL: madflava13

With regards to torp attacks in ports, the main problem is the variety of ports in the game. I understand Singapore harbor would not be a place torpedo attacks could occur. PH as well, with the exception of specially modified torpedos. But then we have places like Kwajalein and Ulithi that are "ports" in game terms, but also huge open expanses of water in real life. Surely torpedo attacks could occur in those places - they did at Kwajalein, I know for a fact. Without massive coding, I don't see how we can exclude certain ports from this. And I would hate to see a blanket ban...

You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map
where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially
modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to
them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were
huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft
deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release.
The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the
ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers
at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what
really makes this a problem.

Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what really makes this a problem.

Agreed. I think there is a way to code "torp attack ineligible ports" however without adding alot of code. It'd be an attribute of the port in the database. In the airstrike routine that determines the load out this would add a conditional statement (two lines of code at most) that loaded bombs rather than torps on air groups whose mission is port attack and whose target hex is marked.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

You nailed the problem on the head. There are a number of Harbors on the map
where using torpedoes is virtually impossible (even at PH, it not only took specially
modified weapons, but only a small area of the anchorage was even vulnerable to
them). On the other hand, you have places like Truk, Ulithi, and the like which were
huge. Seeadler Harbor in the Admiralties is 6 miles wide, 20 miles long, and 120 ft
deep---definately enough space for a torpedo plane to make a run in and release.
The "split" is probably the best we can hope for. But I wish they would get the
ranges under control. Betties and Nells could NOT operate as torpedo bombers
at anything like the ranges they could operate as level bombers. That's what
really makes this a problem.

IMHO (and 100% connected to this) there is one other important issue here:


The UV (and WitP) does not differentiate Port size with anchor size (I think "Subchaser" brought this up first few weeks ago)...

For UV (and WitP) game engine any base with same port size is same regardless of actual geography conditions (i.e. you can place whole fleet with every single ship that exists at anchor in any port size => 3).


Leo "Apollo11"

Hmm, now you are throwing a different issue into the mix, so much for clarity of thought.

Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away.

Do you have any sources that show the effective range of these aircraft on a torpedo attack profile? Judging by the bombload capacity, if they carried a torpedo instead of bombs, they actually had MORE room for fuel because the torpedo was lighter then their bomb load capacity. While there would be some aerodynamic differences (ie: drag from the torpedo), their effective range logically would not be radically different then that of their reduced bombload range.

Hi, I think the Betty/Nell carried the torpedo inside the aircraft. They had to remove the bombbay door. The aircraft that attacked RK Turner on 8 Aug were Betty with the bomb bay door removed.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Just so I understand ... your actual complaint is that Nells and Bettys have too great a normal range so they are getting to carry torpedoes and make attacks (with said torpedoes) on bases that are far away.

Just useing empirical evidence, the distance from South Indo-China to Singapore and the distance from Formosa to Manila is less than the distance between Rabaul and Lunga. So it appears to me that geography not range was the defining reason torp attack were not attempted in those ports. Certainly range wasnt a factor at Suribaya, Batavia, and Darwin. Personally I dont feel it would be too difficult to code. Virtually all non-atoll harbors were imune to at least multi-engine torp bomber attack. But I have resigned myself to live with it because I want to play this game NOW. Hey BTW shouldnt this game be in Beta by now?