Santa came early ...

[madflava13]

I always hated in UV when the AI would launch a torpedo attack from Rabaul on ships at Cairns. I don't have data on historical ranges, but that HAS to be too far for them to fly!

[TIMJOT]

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...

Dont have the stats in front of me, but IIRC I believe it was approx. 700 some odd miles with torp. Which Placed Lunga from Rabaul at the end of that range. Carins would be I believe out of range from Rabaul.

[tanjman]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

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"

I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.

It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP.

[Mike Scholl]

[/quote]
I agree that this is a problem. IMO I think that the port size used in UV/WitP refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, ie. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.

It is probably to late to add the actual port/archorage sizes to WitP.
[/quote]

An unfortunate, but probably quite accurate assumption.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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

Ahm...

Like I said in my initial message in UV (and WitP I presume) the base port is determined by just one single variable - "Port Size".

Also, as said by "tanjman", the most probable definition of that "Port Size" variable is that it refers to the capabilities of the port, not the physical size of the port. In other words its infrastructure, i.e. the ability to load/unload cargo, refuel/rearm and repair ships.


So... the obvious solution would be to have "Port Size" and "Anchor Size" variables to describe every HEX but, unfortunately, I am afraid that we will never see that happening... [:(]

Please Note that "Anchor Size" variable would show the geographic capability of HEX and set how many ships can actually be anchored.

Some special "+" and "-" additional variable would then show availability of torpedo attack with normal torpedoes (i.e. the Pearl Harbor would have "-" because it was safe from ordinary torpedo attacks).

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.

I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote... [;)]


But I do know that they carried torpedo in bomb bay (bomb bay doors would then be removed).

IMHO, that means that no range penalty would be present for same weight (i.e. same range for same bomb weight and torpedo weight).


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote...

Was replying to Mike really, not you [;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I never posted anything about Betty/Nell bomber at all... misquote...

Was replying to Mike really, not you [;)]

RGR [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

And mdiehl, I must admit I found your arguments persuasive, if perhaps based on inadequate information for your assessment of the outcome's tendency.

I like mdiehl's posts. He usually always put in a good argument (unless he comes to AoW trying to debate ME, there he ends up getting owned).

[mdiehl]

[&o]Only because you distract me so with the painted trollop in your sig line.

[byron13]

What do you mean "the" painted trollop? You talk like that's just some random snippet downloaded off the internet somewhere.

The segment of the "trollop" is really a clip of ChickenSalad shaving last Tuesday.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

Its Kylie

you heathens [:@]

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad

Its Kylie

you heathens [:@]

a.k.a the singing budgie

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

[&o]Only because you distract me so with the painted trollop in your sig line.

Oi brainstrust....take a bit more care when you use the words "painted trollop" when refering to our budgie.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]