House Rules Discussion

[tigercub]

[>:]

[jrcar]

My thoughts below:

ORIGINAL: davbaker

I'm looking to add a section on some common house rules to my Newbie FAQ (and to also clarify some things in my mind).
I do realise they everyone has different views on these things, but want to try build a basic set of common sense rules.

All of these have been cut / pasted from 'looking for opponent' forum then I tried to group common ones together.

Any comments / suggestions / clarifications would be appreciated.

Cheers

Dave


1. TURN 1
No allied CV hunting on turn 1.
Japanese player knows where they are, too easy to find and sink.
agree

2. 4 ENGINE BOMBERS
No 4 E naval bombing below 10,000ft
Too Effective / Not Historical ?
No need. non attack bombers suffer a penalty when below 6000ft, and naval strike performance heavily dependant on pilot skill. If a player makes a (good?) tactical choice to focus on naval strike over other skills then they should be allowed to reap any reward. There are now enough cost/benefits (certainly compared to WITP) that makes this rule redundant. Also, in real life 4E bombers DID operate this way.

3. POLITICAL POINTS
Permanently Restricted Units must not cross national Borders.
Agree
Full PP for transfer of units from restricted HQs
i.e. PP to move out of Kwantung/Manchuko, India & China.
yep this is one area that wasn't "fixed" by the developers
No switching land unit to air HQs etc. to do this cheaply
Yep gamey
Full PP to transfer units from restricted HQs to allow movement across borders.
Already covered above?
Thai forces can not move out of 3 hexes of their national frontier.
Don't care but yes I think it is reasonable
AVG must remain in Burma or China.
Disagree, I thiought historically they did plan to or did operate out of Malaya/Singapore... They got a bounty for each Japanese kill claim wherever that kill was by the Chinese.
Various fixes to correct issues with the PP systems shortcomings.

4. NIGHT AIR ATTACKS
Restrict continuous night attacks or any night attack early in the war (until 1944?)
Not historical?
Mixed on this, I've seen limited effectiveness in game, but in real life the missions that were flown where even less effective... probably not doing it is a good thing for both sides.

5. INVASIONS / LAND COMBAT
No sub invasions.
No airdropping 1 squad via airdrop.
Only allow landings/invasions at dots hexes or bases.
No use of portions of parachute units to seize hex's
No unit fragment to cut off retreat, Units blocking retreats must be of realistic size (brigade or above).
Only airdrop a unit on a target if it has at least 40 Prep Points on the target it’s dropped on.
Gamey Tactics ?
Agree except for landings at Dot bases/hexes. Para landings maybe but you have to be able to capture them somehow! 

6. STRATEGIC BOMBING
No strategic bombing in or out of China until 4/43
No Chinese City bombing until 1944.
No bombing of Chinese Industry.
Stop unbalancing of China Theatre?

Yep agree with all these.

7. NAVAL MOVEMENT
Malacca strait must not be crossed by IJN surface ships until Singapore is in IJA hands.
Workaround for Naval guns shortcomings at Singapore?

Agree

8. PT BOATS
All PT in the same hex must be in one TF.
Gamey?

PT's are now far less effective and I don't think this is absolutely required... I often have 2 PT groups at a base, on on defence, one sweeping nearby bases. Having 10 1 PT boat squadrons is wrong... maybe sqndron size minimum of 4-6 boats?

9. ART
Only two independent artillery units may bombard for each division in the hex.
Stops Japanese Death Star Atrillery / Evacuation of all ART from Manchuria?

No longer required thankfully. The current system is much more like real life.

10.AIR COMBAT
Maximum mission altitude for fighters resticted to band with maximum maneuverability.
Helps with constant 'Dive' when using max altitude


I'm mixed on this, my Aircobras at 14k feet (their optimum) decimated KB when it came a visiting (one unit has 120 kills, all from KB). Despite being "swept". Altitude is important, but isn't everything. Part of the complaints are more to do with players not having the tactical nous in the first place. On the other hand in the Pacific few missions were flown about 25k feet. I think tweaks in the next patch will remove any need, and I don't think it is really there now... it certainly helps to have height but you can tactically work around it... just like in real life.

Cheers

Rob

[EUBanana]

1. TURN 1
No allied CV hunting on turn 1.
Japanese player knows where they are, too easy to find and sink.

Seems like common sense to me.

2. 4 ENGINE BOMBERS
No 4 E naval bombing below 10,000ft
Too Effective / Not Historical ?

Probably unnecessary, 4Es really are not very effective in the naval bombing role unless you train them up, and training bomber pilots is very hard for the Allies in 1942. I've used and abused them at low level and they've done nothing except die.

3. POLITICAL POINTS
Permanently Restricted Units must not cross national Borders.
Full PP for transfer of units from restricted HQs
i.e. PP to move out of Kwantung/Manchuko, India & China.
No switching land unit to air HQs etc. to do this cheaply
Full PP to transfer units from restricted HQs to allow movement across borders.
Thai forces can not move out of 3 hexes of their national frontier.
AVG must remain in Burma or China.
Various fixes to correct issues with the PP systems shortcomings.

Pretty much a given I would say if you're being sporting. I wouldn't demand it as a house rule I suppose but I'd expect most people to stick to it anyway. I think you also shouldnt allow people to change a corps HQ and thus get all the subordinate units switched out 'for free'. Otherwise even the PP restriction is minor. I think restricted corps should not be able to change their commands, at all.

That said I'm not sure PPs, even if used in this way, really provide much of a restriction. I got masses of them all the time, hardly ever use em.

4. NIGHT AIR ATTACKS
Restrict continuous night attacks or any night attack early in the war (until 1944?)
Not historical?

Yeah I agree with this in theory, night bombing is ridiculously good. it's better than it was in WITP I think. I'm amazed more people don't complain about it, I remember in WITP it was a major bone of contention.

I can live with it though.

5. INVASIONS / LAND COMBAT
No sub invasions.
No airdropping 1 squad via airdrop.
Only allow landings/invasions at dots hexes or bases.
No use of portions of parachute units to seize hex's
No unit fragment to cut off retreat, Units blocking retreats must be of realistic size (brigade or above).
Only airdrop a unit on a target if it has at least 40 Prep Points on the target it’s dropped on.
Gamey Tactics ? 

Probably a bit gamey but most of them are easy to stop, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Not sure it really makes any odds overall.

6. STRATEGIC BOMBING
No strategic bombing in or out of China until 4/43
No Chinese City bombing until 1944.
No bombing of Chinese Industry.
Stop unbalancing of China Theatre?

Probably the only rule on your list I would demand, this is essential or China is toast and there's nothing you can do.

7. NAVAL MOVEMENT
Malacca strait must not be crossed by IJN surface ships until Singapore is in IJA hands.
Workaround for Naval guns shortcomings at Singapore?

Doubt it really matters. If they really want to go up there, why not.

8. PT BOATS
All PT in the same hex must be in one TF.
Gamey?

Doubt it really matters. PTs arent all that good now. Use DDs to weed em out.

9. ART
Only two independent artillery units may bombard for each division in the hex.
Stops Japanese Death Star Atrillery / Evacuation of all ART from Manchuria?

Artillery got nerfed pretty hard, its not an issue now really except in open hexes. Do not defend in open hexes! Problem solved, no rule needed.

10.AIR COMBAT
Maximum mission altitude for fighters resticted to band with maximum maneuverability.
Helps with constant 'Dive' when using max altitude

Don't think this really helps anything personally, it just changes some numbers around (swap 15k feet for 36k feet) which might make some people happy but the results are basically indistinguishable, just a different number on the combat report.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: davbaker

I'm looking to add a section on some common house rules to my Newbie FAQ (and to also clarify some things in my mind).
I do realise they everyone has different views on these things, but want to try build a basic set of common sense rules.

All of these have been cut / pasted from 'looking for opponent' forum then I tried to group common ones together.

Any comments / suggestions / clarifications would be appreciated.

Cheers

Dave


1. TURN 1
No allied CV hunting on turn 1.
Japanese player knows where they are, too easy to find and sink. Agree. They had no idea where they were.

2. 4 ENGINE BOMBERS
No 4 E naval bombing below 10,000ft
Too Effective / Not Historical ? No. Training requirements obviate this.

3. POLITICAL POINTS
Permanently Restricted Units must not cross national Borders. Agree.
Full PP for transfer of units from restricted HQs
i.e. PP to move out of Kwantung/Manchuko, India & China. Agree.
No switching land unit to air HQs etc. to do this cheaply Agree.
Full PP to transfer units from restricted HQs to allow movement across borders. Agree.
Thai forces can not move out of 3 hexes of their national frontier. Agree.
AVG must remain in Burma or China. Add Malaya to this list.
Various fixes to correct issues with the PP systems shortcomings. Like what?

4. NIGHT AIR ATTACKS
Restrict continuous night attacks or any night attack early in the war (until 1944?)
Not historical? No. Just don't abuse it.

5. INVASIONS / LAND COMBAT
No sub invasions. No. AFAIK only transport subs can conduct invasions anyway.
No airdropping 1 squad via airdrop. How about 2 squads? Just don't be gamey.
Only allow landings/invasions at dots hexes or bases. Nonsense!
No use of portions of parachute units to seize hex's Problem: Air transport is fickle. Player should make realistic effort to transport entire unit or large portion of same. "Just don't be gamey."
No unit fragment to cut off retreat, Units blocking retreats must be of realistic size (brigade or above). Agree. Just don't be gamey.
Only airdrop a unit on a target if it has at least 40 Prep Points on the target it’s dropped on. No. What is the reason for this? Player will lose effectiveness based on prep. It's their dime.
Gamey Tactics ? Agree. Silly to spell out most of the rules in this section, and some are wrong.

6. STRATEGIC BOMBING
No strategic bombing in or out of China until 4/43 No. No strategic bombing into or out of China before 1944.
No Chinese City bombing until 1944. Agree, but see above.
No bombing of Chinese Industry. No. Changes to OOB were made to account for this (much Chinese industry is now daily supply).
Stop unbalancing of China Theatre?

7. NAVAL MOVEMENT
Malacca strait must not be crossed by IJN surface ships until Singapore is in IJA hands.
Workaround for Naval guns shortcomings at Singapore? No. I think Singapore CD guns take care of this?

8. PT BOATS
All PT in the same hex must be in one TF.
Gamey? Why? I typically limit myself to 2 (~6 PT each). Why 1? Just don't be gamey.

9. ART
Only two independent artillery units may bombard for each division in the hex.
Stops Japanese Death Star Atrillery / Evacuation of all ART from Manchuria? No. Obviated by code patches.

10.AIR COMBAT
Maximum mission altitude for fighters resticted to band with maximum maneuverability.
Helps with constant 'Dive' when using max altitude No. Too much clicking. Pick a specific altitude for all planes (in multiple of 5,000ft). Supposedly code patch will obviate this in the future.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

[>:]

You made assertions when proposing an HR. Several posters have gone to the trouble of finding citations that contradict the assertions you made, and this is the best you can do?

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: tigercub

[>:]

You made assertions when proposing an HR. Several posters have gone to the trouble of finding citations that contradict the assertions you made, and this is the best you can do?

Probably is. Sounds like one of these poor folks who confuse their opinions with fact.[8|]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: tigercub

3.Allied subs that are not at sea Dec 7 cannot go on attack missions until the new year as most were not able to...(if anyone has record and any sinkings by allied subs (1941) on the japanese please share )

The first US submarine left Manila on war patrol on Dec 8, 1941. The first left PH on Dec 11. This would be a pretty useless and ahistoric HR.

They sent some and only a few but what did they do...zip....with full control in the game you can kill a lot of ships because there are so many japanese ship running around its far from what happend..so we use only the ones as sea, they get they day in the sun...as far as i can find around 30 ships were lost by the japanese to feb 42 all causes.

from were i set its fair....but each to his own.

I don't see how it's "fair." There were only four subs in PH on Dec 7. The one that left on Dec 11 was not one of them. Subs move, like all ships.

If you're going to insert this HR, do you do the same for all ships? That they can't leave port until they historically did so? Why not? What's so magical about submarines?

The game is not on rails. It gives the player the tools to write game history as he sees fit. Just because USN subs didn't sink anything the week of Dec 11th, why would you go to the trouble fo inserting a HR stating they can't try? It makes no sense.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Just my comments:

Artillery death star got beat to death with the nerf bat. That rule is unnecessary now.

Aerial Mining: I generally play with a rule limiting this to 1 squadron per turn and not done at all until 1944 since the mission can not be intercepted.

As a result of this thread I did some research on aerial mining last night, whcih I had never done before. I was shocked at how massive was the mining effort in the PTO, and the results. Several HUNDRED Japanese ships sunk from mines, and several hundred more damaged. Singapore, Saigon, and Cam Rahn Bay essentially shut down in 1944 from aerial mining. Several hundred B-29s devoted solely to mining. In contrast, submarine mining, which is in the game in a pretty big way, was minor.

The ability of the Allies to mine in the game is tiny compared to RL. I don't see the use of further nerfing it by a HR. The JFBs are already getting a Santa's-bag of presents.

[Barb]

Hi, I will add some more I and my pbem enemy are trying or considering:
Constant dive and sweep advantages:
1. fighters on sweep can do that only up to their max mvr altitude
2. fighters can be set to CAP up to second highest mvr rating
3. units with sweep orders could send max 50% of their planes on sweep
Pace of Air operations and operational loses:
4. Land based Air forces should have at least 30% of their planes on rest.
Night bombing:
5. Heavy bombers (4E) could only bomb strategic targets at night (city attack), not tactical - airfields and ports

Set of first three rules were introduced only 10 or so turns ago, so we cannot really tell what efect they had - except that sweeps are used less often )
Rules 4 and 5 will be introduced in next turn.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

3.Allied subs that are not at sea Dec 7 cannot go on attack missions until the new year as most were not able to...(if anyone has record and any sinkings by allied subs (1941) on the japanese please share )

From my post regarding the Asiatic Fleet sub dispositions at war's start.

USS Salmon was at sea off the west coast of Luzon on 7/8 Dec 1941
USS Snapper was at sea in bound to Manila (she actually arrived ther on the 8th)
USS Sturgeon was at Mariveles Harbor (game location Bataan not Manila)
USS Porpoise was at Olongapo undergoing refit - should start with some syst damage (game location Clark Field)

That alone should reduce the number of SS at Manila from 27 to 23. Now of those remaining 23, eight are listed as having departed on 8 December 1941 (Stingray, S-38, S-41, Sailfish, Sargo, Saury, Seawolf, and Pike). The remaining fifteen departed over the next week except for Sealion which was sunk at Cavite on 14 December

The game already pretty accurately models the USN problems with dud torpedoes. I think limiting the US sub forces any more than that is not really necessary. If the Allied player is able to use his sub forces more effectively than his/her RL counterparts, it is up to the Japanese player to counter it.

HR are by nature only meant to do one of two things in my mind:

1. Account for aspects of the code that are distorted to the point to give an unfair advantage to one side. The old "no 4E on naval attack below xxx feet" rule is a good example. As pointed out already, this seems to be fixed in AE, but it was very necessary in WiTP

2. Account for those things that game cannot or does not address that were part of the RL situation. This type of rule is put in when players desire a certain "historocity" to there games. The AVG was not part of the USAAC until July 1942. They were bought and paid for by the KMT (and sympathetic US donors). Ergo. historically they should be used to keep the Burma road open or defend China. The code does not bar them from being moved anywhere on the map. Some players may say a HR should be in place. If both parties agree then so be it.

Some of type 1 rules are quite necessary. The type 2 rules are optional and add flavor to the game that some players enjoy.

[War History]

I think the purpose of the sub rule is to duplicate the historical loss of the USN submarine torpedoes which of course can not be duplicated in the game. I personally do not see a need for this rule as subs can not reload at Manila without an AS present and if the Japanese player allows that to happen then the allies deserve to be able to reload.

Never saw a reason to even allow 4E bombers on naval attack missions. The only hits achieved of any significance by 4E bombers against moving naval targets were flying what in game terms would be a naval search mission. Did they hit ships docked in port? Sure (port attack mission), but never (or VERY rarely) formation flying against moving targets. The few hits that actually occurred were single planes or pairs attacking (usually) single targets.

[davbaker]

Thanks guys,
some good stuff here.

I will work on updating list with explanation etc. in the next few days.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: War History

I think the purpose of the sub rule is to duplicate the historical loss of the USN submarine torpedoes which of course can not be duplicated in the game. I personally do not see a need for this rule as subs can not reload at Manila without an AS present and if the Japanese player allows that to happen then the allies deserve to be able to reload.

Never saw a reason to even allow 4E bombers on naval attack missions. The only hits achieved of any significance by 4E bombers against moving naval targets were flying what in game terms would be a naval search mission. Did they hit ships docked in port? Sure (port attack mission), but never (or VERY rarely) formation flying against moving targets. The few hits that actually occurred were single planes or pairs attacking (usually) single targets.

The old argument against this is the question: have you got accounts about 17.874 Betty/Nell sorties armed with torpedoes between 41 and 45? That´s just a number a PBEM can bring up. More, FAR MORE, ships were sunk by Allied 4E bombers (of different types) than ships were sunk by Ms. Betty and Ms. Nell with torpedoes. I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers.

Became much better in AE alltogether.

[War History]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: War History

I think the purpose of the sub rule is to duplicate the historical loss of the USN submarine torpedoes which of course can not be duplicated in the game. I personally do not see a need for this rule as subs can not reload at Manila without an AS present and if the Japanese player allows that to happen then the allies deserve to be able to reload.

Never saw a reason to even allow 4E bombers on naval attack missions. The only hits achieved of any significance by 4E bombers against moving naval targets were flying what in game terms would be a naval search mission. Did they hit ships docked in port? Sure (port attack mission), but never (or VERY rarely) formation flying against moving targets. The few hits that actually occurred were single planes or pairs attacking (usually) single targets.

The old argument against this is the question: have you got accounts about 17.874 Betty/Nell sorties armed with torpedoes between 41 and 45? That´s just a number a PBEM can bring up. More, FAR MORE, ships were sunk by Allied 4E bombers (of different types) than ships were sunk by Ms. Betty and Ms. Nell with torpedoes. I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers.

Became much better in AE alltogether.

By "More, FAR MORE" you can provide data on the squadrons attacking and the ships hit/sunk by 4E bombers flying in squadron formations (not individual attacks) I assume? Please do so because without it your statement means nothing.

[tigercub]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



The first US submarine left Manila on war patrol on Dec 8, 1941. The first left PH on Dec 11. This would be a pretty useless and ahistoric HR.

They sent some and only a few but what did they do...zip....with full control in the game you can kill a lot of ships because there are so many japanese ship running around its far from what happend..so we use only the ones as sea, they get they day in the sun...as far as i can find around 30 ships were lost by the japanese to feb 42 all causes.

from were i set its fair....but each to his own.

In all fairness saying "The allied player cannot fight a successful sub war in Dec 1941 cause it didn't happen in real life" would be about on par with a HR that says "The japanese player must allow 4 of his carriers to be sunk by mid 1942, because thats what happened...."

Just my 2c. Obviously Each to their own.

The problem is that Allied player can and if used with skill will sink many large AP @ AK loaded with Stuff even with the poor trops way out side the scope of what happen...hence we have this HR....for 23 odd days...(and not for the subs at sea)IMO its fair...sinking many ships this early in the game is not hard with for the 28 odd subs there.

Note:manila .dec 7..Because many of the subs were not in a fully ready state for action not shown by the game, they were forced to sea many just not able to get to action were sent on missions but were moved back to the DEI out of harms way failing to do anything even when they did try,on the 11 Dec the main Sub base was moved to Surabaya because of the japanese advance.

I think there is a case for this HR but each to his own.(but only for Manila)

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: tigercub


They sent some and only a few but what did they do...zip....with full control in the game you can kill a lot of ships because there are so many japanese ship running around its far from what happend..so we use only the ones as sea, they get they day in the sun...as far as i can find around 30 ships were lost by the japanese to feb 42 all causes.

from were i set its fair....but each to his own.

In all fairness saying "The allied player cannot fight a successful sub war in Dec 1941 cause it didn't happen in real life" would be about on par with a HR that says "The japanese player must allow 4 of his carriers to be sunk by mid 1942, because thats what happened...."

Just my 2c. Obviously Each to their own.

The problem is that Allied player can and if used with skill will sink many large AP @ AK loaded with Stuff even with the poor trops way out side the scope of what happen...hence we have this rule....for 23 odd days...IMO its fair.

I would be ok to accept that in a PBEM game as Allies if the Japanese player also used "Historical Japanese Sub Doctrine".

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: War History

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: War History

I think the purpose of the sub rule is to duplicate the historical loss of the USN submarine torpedoes which of course can not be duplicated in the game. I personally do not see a need for this rule as subs can not reload at Manila without an AS present and if the Japanese player allows that to happen then the allies deserve to be able to reload.

Never saw a reason to even allow 4E bombers on naval attack missions. The only hits achieved of any significance by 4E bombers against moving naval targets were flying what in game terms would be a naval search mission. Did they hit ships docked in port? Sure (port attack mission), but never (or VERY rarely) formation flying against moving targets. The few hits that actually occurred were single planes or pairs attacking (usually) single targets.

The old argument against this is the question: have you got accounts about 17.874 Betty/Nell sorties armed with torpedoes between 41 and 45? That´s just a number a PBEM can bring up. More, FAR MORE, ships were sunk by Allied 4E bombers (of different types) than ships were sunk by Ms. Betty and Ms. Nell with torpedoes. I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers.

Became much better in AE alltogether.

By "More, FAR MORE" you can provide data on the squadrons attacking and the ships hit/sunk by 4E bombers flying in squadron formations (not individual attacks) I assume? Please do so because without it your statement means nothing.

sure buddy. Even though I assume you have read at least one book about the PTO that also talks about air attacks on ships. Well, I show you mine and let you show me yours. Can you provide data about a Betty daitai that sunk 200+ ships with TORPS? Can you provide data about a number of torpedo attacks that comes ANYWHERE close to the total number of thousands of torp attacks in 4 years in a PBEM? You can´t, because they didn´t happen, but I let you surprise me. I´m a long time Japanese PBEM player, but I´m not insane enough to say (or even think) that the IJNAF flew a couple of thousand Betty strikes with torps. I sure did in WITP in a couple of years of war and it´s reduced in AE by, let´s say, 25%.

FYI, right hand middle, this is a bomber and it has got FOUR engines...

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: War History

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: War History

I think the purpose of the sub rule is to duplicate the historical loss of the USN submarine torpedoes which of course can not be duplicated in the game. I personally do not see a need for this rule as subs can not reload at Manila without an AS present and if the Japanese player allows that to happen then the allies deserve to be able to reload.

Never saw a reason to even allow 4E bombers on naval attack missions. The only hits achieved of any significance by 4E bombers against moving naval targets were flying what in game terms would be a naval search mission. Did they hit ships docked in port? Sure (port attack mission), but never (or VERY rarely) formation flying against moving targets. The few hits that actually occurred were single planes or pairs attacking (usually) single targets.

The old argument against this is the question: have you got accounts about 17.874 Betty/Nell sorties armed with torpedoes between 41 and 45? That´s just a number a PBEM can bring up. More, FAR MORE, ships were sunk by Allied 4E bombers (of different types) than ships were sunk by Ms. Betty and Ms. Nell with torpedoes. I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers.

Became much better in AE alltogether.

By "More, FAR MORE" you can provide data on the squadrons attacking and the ships hit/sunk by 4E bombers flying in squadron formations (not individual attacks) I assume? Please do so because without it your statement means nothing.

You didn't care to provide any data in your original post - "Few, Very few, hardly ever".

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: War History

ORIGINAL: castor troy




The old argument against this is the question: have you got accounts about 17.874 Betty/Nell sorties armed with torpedoes between 41 and 45? That´s just a number a PBEM can bring up. More, FAR MORE, ships were sunk by Allied 4E bombers (of different types) than ships were sunk by Ms. Betty and Ms. Nell with torpedoes. I´ve recently posted an example of the most succesful PB4Y-2 squadron, which IIRC sank more than 200 ships (of various types) in 44 alone. Pretty sure this SINGLE USN squadron sunk more ships than the IJNAF sunk with torpedo attacks carried out by medium bombers.

Became much better in AE alltogether.

By "More, FAR MORE" you can provide data on the squadrons attacking and the ships hit/sunk by 4E bombers flying in squadron formations (not individual attacks) I assume? Please do so because without it your statement means nothing.

You didn't care to provide any data in your original post - "Few, Very few, hardly ever".

and this means it´s not correct I assume. Guess 99.5% of all posts on the forum are without ANY quotations. And I can´t even see a reason for the need for it because IMO, noone that is just slightly interested in this matter here on the forum can even think about arguing about the number of IJNAF torpedo attacks in WITP or AE. If he does, then he knows nothing about the PTO, easily put. There are things that don´t even have to be argued, I wouldn´t argue about the number of A-bombs dropped on Japan either. I guess there were two, do I have to provide any data?

I welcome anyone on the board that dares to say there were a couple of thousand torpedo attacks done by IJNAF medium bombers. Sure a funny read. There is no doubt that the IJNAF had two major successes with torps. The first one: Pearl Harbour, the second one: POW and Repulse. That is the reason for the game and the aerial torp design. Naval bombardments? Henderson field seemed to be the example for the nav bombardment design back then, just to name another example.

[War History]

No, I'm saying if there really are "FAR more" as you claim, it can't be that hard for you to provide data to back that up. I am certainly unaware of any. It isn't that I would refuse to believe you if you had data on it. That's all I'm asking for. In 50 some years of studying WWII I haven't come across anything that would substantiate your claim. Just asking you to enlighten me on something I may have missed. If you can't, then as you say it's just another of the 99.5% of posts that mean nothing at all.

As for the numbers of torpedo attacks by Bettys in the game, I guess that would vary game to game. The game I have in Nov 42 I haven't launched a torpedo since March.