Matrix Games Forums

Thanks. I thought she looked like a DD.

"Midget subs are not in the game (officially) "


Ouch.

Ouch.

Brady, how many of them caused Allied ship losses?

If I have to answer that..........again..........it is defenatly not worth posting.......again, it points to somthing that can not be over come, and I see that now.


I sincearly appricate all the hard work done by the testers, and I do not mean that remark in a despearging way toward them or the designe crew personaly.

If I have to answer that..........again..........it is defenatly not worth posting.......again, it points to somthing that can not be over come, and I see that now.

It was serious question ...

If it was a weapons system that caused impact, then it should be in the game. I don't get a chance to read every note posted here because I am kinda busy. [;)]

It it had range so small that it doesn't work within a 60 mile hex scale, there is probably no way of dealing with it. PT boats had problems like that. Because of their severe range limits, there is a special rule where they do not use fuel unless moving outside the hex they are in.

I punted one of the more lengthy threads on the subject for you Mr. Frag, while it gets off tract a bit, you wil find all you would want to know, and likely more than you would care to on it and in the links it has.

I punted one of the more lengthy threads on the subject for you Mr. Frag, while it gets off tract a bit, you wil find all you would want to know, and likely more than you would care to on it and in the links it has.

Ok, I remember why I ignored it.

Flat out answer for you:

Too small a weapon to include without including equal level of stuff from the other side.

You will learn to *hate* small ships with piss poor range in WitP. You will send them into harms way just to get rid of them as they get stranded all over that map and do nothing more the hog your fuel stocks.

Japan more then makes up for any short comings here by having an unlimited number of torpedoes for aircraft use that have a heck of a lot more use and effectiveness then any of these toys.

"Too small a weapon to include without including equal level of stuff from the other side. "

O, So the Historicaly corect and I beleave well represented Huge Numerical andvantage that the Alliese enjoyed is not suficient..lol. I think Mogami, provided a decent explanation of my point of view in that thread.

"You will learn to *hate* small ships with piss poor range in WitP. You will send them into harms way just to get rid of them as they get stranded all over that map and do nothing more the hog your fuel stocks. "

Perhaps, but these would use little fuel.

"Japan more then makes up for any short comings here by having an unlimited number of torpedoes for aircraft use that have a heck of a lot more use and effectiveness then any of these toys. "

So do the allies.

So do the allies.

Nope, you are completely missing my point. Japan had serious contraints imposed by her poor industrial development.

These massive constraints are not modelled in the game. Each time you go to port and top up your guns or torpedoes, there will always be enough. Each time a plane take off, it has a full load of bombs or torpedoes to carry. They never run out.

This is *such* a boost to Japan that it is beyond belief.

The Allies did not suffer at all from this problem, producing far more then they could ever use once they got going. The Sherman tank was a classic example of this. It wasn't that they were good tanks, but the 10th one would always kill you after you had killed 9 of them. There were 30 replacements waiting for the 9 lost.

Adding 150 extra targets that do nothing would realistically mean that 300 torpedoes where not available for your planes or ships to carry. Since we don't cap the ships and planes, the loss of those 150 sure kills by Allied DE's that are not going to be doing anything else anyways means nothing to the Allies. It does not slow them down or change their strategy at all.

lol.

Hi,
did you ever think of making up rules for ad hoc Kamikaze's before 44 ? When some pilots (even allied ones) decided to ram their damaged doomed planes into whatever crossed their path ? I think there have been such incidents !

There were instances of this even as early as in the Solomons campaign, or at least there are "accounts" of planes hitting Allied ships "intentionally" before the tactic became widely used.

Morison in "The Two Ocean War" cites at least one.

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

There were instances of this even as early as in the Solomons campaign, or at least there are "accounts" of planes hitting Allied ships "intentionally" before the tactic became widely used.

Morison in "The Two Ocean War" cites at least one.

The 1st case was December 7th 1941 at Pearl Harbor where a fatally damaged Japanese plane crashed into the seaplane tender Curtiss, This was the random act of one pilot made on the spur of the moment to take out just a few more as he died.

An organized tactic can be modeled (and is) but the spur of the moment actions of individuals based on unique set of circumstances at the time they happen can not.

ORIGINAL: pry


An organized tactic can be modeled (and is) but the spur of the moment actions of individuals based on unique set of circumstances at the time they happen can not.

Really, why not ?
Everytime a plane during Air-Naval attack is downed during the last inbound AA run roll a die, modify using nationality, time etc. and apply extra damage or not.

In London, they just dug up the wreck of a British Hurricane that ran out of ammunition and then intentionally rammed a Luftwaffe bomber during the Blitz. This sort of thing probably goes back to WW I.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 762715.stm

ORIGINAL: GBirkn

In London, they just dug up the wreck of a British Hurricane that ran out of ammunition and then intentionally rammed a Luftwaffe bomber during the Blitz. This sort of thing probably goes back to WW I.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 762715.stm

Arrrg.. I Did not literally mean 1st time ever... rather the 1st time a plane intentionally crashed into a ship in the Pacific during WWII where it was to became a common tactic later on.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you had meant that as the first time ever, just to illustrate that desperate or shot-down pilots of other nationalities sometimes deliberately crashed their planes into targets as well. The Japanese may or may not have been more likely than other nations to do that; their deliberate kamikaze attacks by whole formations launched for that purpose were the really fundamental change.

During the battle of Midway Marine Captain Richard E. Flemming crashed his damaged SB2U 'Wind-Indicator' [:D] into Mikuma. Either by accident or deliberately is still debated though. I think most of you guys have seen the famous picture of Mikuma with a plane wreck sitting on top of the after 8-inch turret.

To simulate this type of ad hoc kamikaze attack, may I suggest using the MkI "JCYEAP" user interface.

Just Close Your Eyes And Pretend

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

To simulate this type of ad hoc kamikaze attack, may I suggest using the MkI "JCYEAP" user interface.

Just Close Your Eyes And Pretend

Looks like that was a thread stopper.....[:D]