BUT Betty's "TORP" attacking Singapore Naval Base and Cavite Naval Base strains all believability. It was phsyically I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.
Other posters have already addressed the ways you can force more historical first turn results. I'm interested in this statement above. Why was it impossible? We already know that we can't track who is in dry dock and who is not. We strongly believe that torpedo bombers need to be able to use some torpedoes in port (because they did historically). If there is a reason that the Level Bombers should not use torpedoes in port, I'd like to hear it. It would not be that hard for us to force them to drop bombs (of course they would have to do it in all port attacks, not just certain ports) if you can explain the reasons for this. Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Joel, keep it the way it is. Like you said, torpedo attacks were done historically on ports. Without torpedos G3Ms and G4Ms are just laughable (or cryable for the Japanese).
Given that we have to do it for all ports, would you want us to limit Level Bombers to just using bombs in port? As an alternative we could also have only some use torpedoes to represent that some ships are in positions that cannot be attacked by torpedoes (as we are doing currently for all torpedo attacks in port). If so, please present your case for this. Thanks.
Using torpedoes in a harbor was very difficult, because a heavy torpedo dropped into water from a height tends to sink to a significant depth before it levels off. The USN was well aware of what happened at Taranto, and considered installing anti-topedo netting at Pearl Harbor. They didn't because the depth of the harbor was shallow enough so that air-dropped torpedoes were considered impossible anyway. What they didn't realize was that the depth was known to the Japanese planners, who developed low-level attack runs and torpedo settings to overcome this problem. This technique would certainly not have worked for torpedoes dropped from 15,000 feet!
Here we need some research. After PH, most of the world's navies got busy and put in anti-torpedo netting. But it's fair to assume many important harbors already had it. After their own success at Taranto, and the loss of the "Royal Oak" at Scapa Flow, my guess is the Brits would already have installed anti-torpedo netting at Singapore.
Cavite Naval yard is another story. I am not aware of any succesful torpedoings of a docked submarine through all of WWII. In the Atlantic, this is because of the massive U-boat "pens" the Germans built. But I confess I don't know what the set-ups were in the Pacific.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
When an aircraft with a torpedo makes it's run it drops to 200 feet (japanese) or 100 feet (USN) the 15,000 is just the altitude the aircraft fly to target.
In the combat text level bombers bomb from 15,000 while torpedo planes bomb from 200
(Check the Pearl Harbor strike you can count torpedo planes by those that attack at 200. The 9,000ft Kates are dropping bombs.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
The assumption should be that major ports would have torp netting and net tenders (they were a part of every naval base.) As I posted in the dev forums, perhaps limiting torp attacks to smaller ports (4 and below) would suffice, PH attack exempted obviously. Actually, since any port smaller than 4 does not allow disbanding, why not leave it as no torp attacks on ships disbanded in port? I'd rather this than include net defences, net tenders,barrage balloons and all the coding needed for countermeasures. Can't have one and not the other.
If the results achieved in this AAR were possible, why were they not attempted? Not like they did not have enough time to plan if it were possible. I can't recall any instance of medium bombers making torpedo attacks against ships in a major harbor. Maybe limiting this to more maneuverable single engined aircraft and to harbors of lesser size is acceptable.
Not trying to be too disagreeable here but not caring about the results of turn 1? What? Why bother going to the level of detail achieved in the simulation thus far if this sort of result is not only possible but accepted? I think we've come too far to drop the ball now.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Joel, keep it the way it is. Like you said, torpedo attacks were done historically on ports. Without torpedos G3Ms and G4Ms are just laughable (or cryable for the Japanese).
Give me one example of medium bombers torpedoeing ships in a major port. I don't mind deviating from history as not being able to would be boring as hell, but we should try to keep it within reason.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
though i did not support LBA being able to do it, i'll play devil's advocate for the sake of balance.
Why wouldn't a twin engine be able to do it? Not all that different from skip bombing. Commonwealth pilots did some daring mast height bombings of the Malayan transports right from the get go. But of course they only had bombs. Had they torps though i'm sure they would have attempted to use them.
We need to keep in mind that PORT ATTACKS are a blend of bomb/torpedo too and that we cannot make distinctions between certain ports.
I believe the Japanese modified their torps for Pearl due to the shallow water in the port. The Arizona is sitting on the bottom and, were it still there, one main gun turrent would be completely out of the water. That's a shallow port!
There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.
though i did not support LBA being able to do it, i'll play devil's advocate for the sake of balance.
Why wouldn't a twin engine be able to do it? Not all that different from skip bombing. Commonwealth pilots did some daring mast height bombings of the Malayan transports right from the get go. But of course they only had bombs. Had they torps though i'm sure they would have attempted to use them.
We need to keep in mind that PORT ATTACKS are a blend of bomb/torpedo too and that we cannot make distinctions between certain ports.
Balance is achieved, or should be, through victory points and conditions, not by altering capabilities.
We can make distinctions between ports as it is already in the game. Size three and down, the port cannot allow a TF to disband into it as it is not developed enough, no channels, piers, finger piers, dockyards, what have you. Because of this, the TF which is docked is vulnerable to torpedo attack. Good enough in my book.
Anyway, I repeat, give me an example of medium bombers conducting torpedo attacks against ships in a major port. Before allowing it in a game, perhaps we should prove it was possible in reality.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Then give us an example. Anyway, Doolittle used B 25s off a CV but we CAN'T do this, so why be allowed to do something which was NOT done.
This is kinda fun.[;)]
I am aware of none. That doesn't mean they couldn't. Thus, thats why i've asked "why not?" The B-25's didn't because the USAAF didn't much pursue the use of torpedoes. They did toy with the idea using B-26's.....the experiment going rather badly at Midway.
This is not the case with the Japanese who embraced LBA torp tactics prewar
Fantastic – the two dingos are at it again. I have been waiting for you two to have another crack at each other. Keep the results and the banter coming – I’ll try and add a few rude comments along the way.
Right, now the ‘Jap’s are too powerful’ debate…
I don’t consider myself an axis fanboy but what I am about to write next may convince you otherwise.
First and foremost I consider WitP and UV to be games rather than simulations. As such, quibbling over the accuracy of certain tactics used, or capabilities of weapons pales beside the need to keep both sides interested in the GAME. I see WitP’s main campaign scenario occurring in 3 phases:
1. Japanese ascendency. War begins. They have short lines of supply – good pilots, aircraft and capable surface ships commanded by capable leaders. They can and will get the upper hand against the allied side during this period. The allied player must succour himself with small victories and pat themselves on the back for each successful retreat they manage. The important point to make here is the allies know this isn’t a permanent situation; there is light at the end of the tunnel. Personally I don’t get down on many of my losses as the allies early in the game (UV or WitP when I get it). I know that the supply lines for the Japs are going to get so long that they wont be able to support any more expansion – equilibrium must be reached.
2. Equal Combatants. Usually from about June 42 to May 43. Both sides have good units; the allies are catching up in numbers and can get local areas of superiority. The Japanese ships and planes are suffering from wear and tear; their pilot’s capability falling as the new allied designs surpass their planes. This to me is the best part of the game – equality. It cannot last as the very fact the japs use their ships planes and pilots means they will loose them – they don’t have the same capability to replace them. So, slowly the Jap player is starting to loose strength and ability to resist – there is no light at the end of the tunnel for them.
3. Allied Superiority. About May ’43 on. In every facet of the game the allies have superiority accept surface combat TFs (Japs are comparable)– and here the allies make up for this with numbers. A successful – read long lance or surprise – surface attack by the Japs still results in losses they can’t replace and more likely in damaged ships being sunk, as they retreat during the day, by allied air power. Here is my big issue (sorry about the long winded way of getting here) baring EXTREMELY fortunate early play – read the Japs still have all KB as in PzB’s AAR against Crocky – there is absolutely nothing they can do to halt the allied advance. Squirreling away Aircraft and ships to see them smashed because of inferiority is heart breaking. To me this is the kicker. Fortunately for us we are not actually fighting the war, in the real deal the allies won through all of these superior capabilities, we can breathe the free air; but this is a game! You are going to find a rare Jap player indeed who will put up with being incapable of doing anything to stop the allies AND knowing it is only going to get worse. Forget ‘trying out the A-bomb’ no game is going to get that far because the Jap players are going to surrender.
So, to all of you that lament the increased capabilities of the Japanese as ahistorical I say: “spare me, I would trade this inconsistency with closer late game play any day”. World War 2 in the Pacific was NOT a fight between equal combatants; we know that, we live with the results; but you cannot make a GAME with such parameters, playing as the Japanese in the end game wont be fun it will be torture.
I say “let the japs have torpedo port runs” let them have ASW capability; they need all the help they can get. It may rankle those that KNOW the allies are more powerful than they are being portrayed, but I am playing UV scenario 9 – stalemate and counterpunch – against PzB as the Japs and the feeling of helplessness is the overriding one. Every weapon the Japs possess is a one shot Charlie, and the date? Well its April ’43 that is one hell of a long time until the actual end of the war. I cannot see many players wanting to put up with the punishment if they don’t feel they have some ability to resist. If you set this game up to be a simulation then it will take a truly hardy soul to continue until the end.
Then give us an example. Anyway, Doolittle used B 25s off a CV but we CAN'T do this, so why be allowed to do something which was NOT done.
This is kinda fun.[;)]
I am aware of none. That doesn't mean they couldn't. Thus, thats why i've asked "why not?" The B-25's didn't because the USAAF didn't much pursue the use of torpedoes. They did toy with the idea using B-26's.....the experiment going rather badly at Midway.
This is not the case with the Japanese who embraced LBA torp tactics prewar
First and foremost...it was not done. Having "embraced" it or not does not hide the fact that they did not utilize it. Before allowing it in the game, it should be illustrated that it was possible, preferably with established fact , not the other way around. Not only should it be shown that it was feasable to do once, it should be shown that it was a standard operating procedure and was practiced regularily. Why? Because players will.
Here is an example why not...
During the German attack on Bari, Italy in Dec, 1943, the shipping (which was the designated target of the attack) was hit by over 150 JU 88s flown by pilots experienced in torpedo attack. They attacked with BOMBS. Why? Attacking with torpedo armed level bombers was deemed (by Wolfram von Richtofen no less) next to impossible due to harbour defences, harbour geography in relation to level bomber attack prerequisites and potential damage yield. Attacking with torpedoes severely limited the number of targets which could PHYSICALLY be hit IF the bombers managed to drop them effectively. Using bombs, they sank 17 freighters and damaged 8, and also succeeded in releasing Mustard Gas which the Americans had secretly shipped in the Liberty ship "John Harvey". Sneaky Americans...[:)]
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
I have seen a photo - can't find it, of betties or nells coming in across a harbour mouth, dropping torps at ships at anchor - I think it was vs allied transports at PM.
For all you crybabies screaming about the non historical-ness of the combat, deal with it. I didn't choose a historical turn one, and I certainly didn't leave the orders as they were historically. I'm here to do better than the japanese - and so far I'm possibly doing that (minus a few more pilots however).
A port hex does not just represent a harbour, it represents a 60 mile large hex. Ships moored "out in the chains" or even further out, even outside the harbour often due to the size of ports and the difficulty of traffic control.
The war started with a torpedo attack in a very shallow port where everyone said it couldn't be done. SO, is it more -ahistoric to include level bombers which would have been able to do it under some, if not all circumstances, or is it more historical to ban the lot?
If you can the lot, ships are suddenly "safe" from everything except bombs in port - far safer than they ever were in real life. A human player would just hie his ships into port and hide from the torps. In real life those ships were running for their lives because to get bombed in port was a really bad idea.
Now Mike, you comments on the "triple move surprise" really irritate. For starters, they are all available in options when you set up the game. If you don't like it, don't play it. However I like it, and I'm playing it this way. You are going to have to take some pills and deal with it.
As for sailing my battleline to singapore, I also had time to sail KB from the home islands to Pearl (which is further)!! This is because the japanese are given a movement bonus on first turn to represent the fact that they would have PLANNED for it in the previous montsh and weeks. Singapore and Pearl are the limit - you can't get KB behind pearl, and you can't get BBs from Japan to hit darwin or anything truly crazy.
This rule represents that the japs had planning and surprise and ALLOWS THE HUMAN PLAYER TO CHANGE THE PLAN before the 7th. This is the single greatest feature that adds replayablility to the game. You just can't seem to see past the history-version (which I'm not playing here) can you?? What if I'd gone with my plan-b which was not to attack pearl at all, but sink every transport at manila instead with KB??????? I decided not to attack pearl (majorly ahistoric) would you still be bitching and whining? What if I had tried to "stab in the atlantic" and catch Raver's CVs instead? Often doesn't work, but if it did, 2 sunk us cvs would be a great result!
Ron - these results were not attempted by the japs in real life for several reasons. The first one was the added risk - especially at pearl for doing things like devoting all the strike aircraft to the port attack. Pearl could have launched a counterstrike at KB (have seen it several times - always happens if you don't hit the airfields. My aim was to hit them hard enough to keep them from attacking KB. As for singapore, well if you read the combat report you'll realise that my battleline there got hammered by the CD unit (in spite of the fact that it was a total surprise to the poms!). The extra troops I'm throwing around the place, as Mog explained months ago, come at a cost. They have to be back in China before things get really messy.
Disappointed that the history-or-die attitude is being applied to my historic first turn OFF, jap surprise ON game. Especially when I do something very risky, get a reasonable return (often allied AA at pearl and at singapore just makes loosing so many betties unbearable) and have the peanut gallery go apeshit about things that, well, they already knew about. Everything here has already been discussed - ad nauseum. Can't we find something new to complain about?
With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?
