Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

[el cid again]

I do also favor load restrictions. Short of accounting for every bean, bullet and bomb, some type of supply expenditure for a particular weapons load would also be a good idea.

Presumably there IS a supply expendature. Watch supply levels as you fly missions. You use more supplies to fly bombing missions. We probably can figure this out if anyone cares.

[treespider]

Frankly WITP is a very simple model. I think you are asking way too much of the model. If we get a more sophisticated model - then maybe we can change loadouts. But in that case, I still think players will use torpedoes more than history. The ONLY way to stop that is to go for torpedo production - Japan couldn't make that many. We just fabricate them out of supply points in the field, as it were.

Hence the very simple and elegant suggestion to base loadout on base size. It is more difficult in game for the Japanese to expand bases... so this change would sim the Japanese torp production limitation.

[el cid again]

Wellll, if the sky's the limit, then maybe the game should track torpedoes or ordnance -- and aviation fuel, heh. Be careful what we wish for! But seriously, the game does have a means for limiting use of torpedoes by DDs and PTs: you have to visit a big base, or an appropriate tender. So the game has already gone down this path a bit.

I prefer to have three kinds of supplies:

Fuel (POL)
Ammo (everything bigger than small arms ammunition)
General (everything else)

Fuel is used by planes - and motor vehicles - not just ships.
Ammo is used to shoot.

I recommended this for WITP but it was not adopted. I use it in many systems - and it does have some advantages. Planes need ALL THREE kinds of supply to be effective - and in quantity. Maybe someday in WITP II...

[el cid again]

If Matrix would consider a patch - why not make the Japanese go through the same series of checks that the allies need to carry 1000lb AP bombs for LBs? The allies rarely get 1000lbrs (relatively).

The 1000 pound bombs don't matter a whit - according to the programmer who posted this in the forum - 2x500 pound or 4x250 pound bombs = same result. I have attempted to "fool" the engine with data - in which case you will do better with a 1000 pound bomb against an armored ship but much worse against infantry (you can only get so many guys with one bomb - but it penetrates better - and lets water into a ship). Also, note that a Japanese plane will not carry its normal loadout beyond normal range - so it is only a torpedo bomber up to 25% of its range - to go farther it carries only a reduced bomb load (out to 33% of range). These are not bad values.

[el cid again]

And while we are at it - why not up the base size requirement to level six for both Allied and Japanese bombers to carry their ant-shipping ordinance?

According to the programmer posting - and to the manual - base requirements are determined by max bomb load settings. RHS has made these correct again (they were deliberately reduced I am told) - so the base requirements will go back up - particularly for Allied bombers - which have rather large max loads.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also, note that a Japanese plane will not carry its normal loadout beyond normal range - so it is only a torpedo bomber up to 25% of its range - to go farther it carries only a reduced bomb load (out to 33% of range). These are not bad values.

You mean 75% and not 25% - right?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Frankly WITP is a very simple model. I think you are asking way too much of the model. If we get a more sophisticated model - then maybe we can change loadouts. But in that case, I still think players will use torpedoes more than history. The ONLY way to stop that is to go for torpedo production - Japan couldn't make that many. We just fabricate them out of supply points in the field, as it were.

Hence the very simple and elegant suggestion to base loadout on base size. It is more difficult in game for the Japanese to expand bases... so this change would sim the Japanese torp production limitation.

Increasing the base/airfield size requirement would be a simple way to do it.

The G4M/G3M torpedo attack capability as is well overstated currently in the game - no different than the unrealistic US Hvy Bmbr capability in 1942 that so many people complained about (correctly).

B

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also, note that a Japanese plane will not carry its normal loadout beyond normal range - so it is only a torpedo bomber up to 25% of its range - to go farther it carries only a reduced bomb load (out to 33% of range). These are not bad values.

You mean 75% and not 25% - right?


Leo "Apollo11"

I think he means 25% of MAX range.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: treespider

I think he means 25% of MAX range.

Ahhh... I see... BTW the "Normal Range" is, I think, around 75% of "Extended Range"...


Leo "Apollo11"

[el cid again]

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also, note that a Japanese plane will not carry its normal loadout beyond normal range - so it is only a torpedo bomber up to 25% of its range - to go farther it carries only a reduced bomb load (out to 33% of range). These are not bad values.


You mean 75% and not 25% - right?

No - I mean 25%.

Aircraft range is determined by two values - crusing speed and endurance. Range is the product divided by 60 minutes (per hour).
This yields "transfer range" - the distance the aircraft can fly between points. It is not operational range. WITP code is very simple: it says
"normal range" is 25% of range and "extended range" is 33% of range. These values actually vary with plane type and mission type and profile - but they are very fine avarages if you want a simple rule of thumb.

The complaint that torpedo range is "too great" is essentially bogus.
Study, for example, The Hunting of Force Z (book title). It is pretty clear that Japanese naval bombers would even conduct recon missions with torpedo armament, and could actually do so to greater ranges then our code allows.

To this should be added that the code ROUNDS DOWN. That is, ONLY if the transfer range is 16 will your normal range be 4. If your transfer range is 17, or 18, or even 19, your normal range is STILL 4 - so that means you are getting significantly less than 25%.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The complaint that torpedo range is "too great" is essentially bogus.
Study, for example, The Hunting of Force Z (book title). It is pretty clear that Japanese naval bombers would even conduct recon missions with torpedo armament, and could actually do so to greater ranges then our code allows.

Nice example... [8D] but even then not all of Betty/Nell carried torpedoes - some of them carried bombs for that mission!


BTW, why was that (historically speaking)?

Was it because of lack of torpedoes (i.e. they gave torpedoes, as most dangerous weapon, only to best crews)?


Leo "Apollo11"

[juliet7bravo]

I'm a firm believer in having to manufacture and distribute torpedoes, as well as restriction on the base size where they could be loaded onto AC (or reloaded onto ships). The USN for example, had a torp production of a whopping 60 per month at wars start, and only produced around 2300 in all of 1942. While expending roughly that number. The torp shortage was a serious issue for the USN. From the Japanese perspective, the number of diveable WW2 Japanese wrecks with torpedoes as part of their cargo is an indicator of how this could complicate game play.

If your game play depends on the indescriminate and unrestricted use of torpedoes...then, somewhere there's serious game mechanics issues, cuz that ain't got any connection to RL. I can't think of any torpedo attacks that originated at little fly speck atolls or jungle strips in RL. Or Japanese LB air attacks against mainland Oz ports by torpedo carrying Betties/Nells. Probably the smallest base I can think of offhand launching torp attacks was Midway. It's also interesting to note that the Japanese were building torpedo facilities at GC.

[tsimmonds]

The game already includes some very simple prerequisites that muct be met before ships can replenish torpedoes: "non-PT-boat surface ships may only reload torpedoes with in the hex with a size 8,9, or 10 port with sufficient supplies or in a hex with an AD ship and a base with sufficient supplies." "PT boats may only reload torpedoes when in the hex with a size 3 or larger port with at least 20,000 supplies or in a hex with an AGP ship and a base with sufficient supplies."

Ignoring for a moment the illogic of the different port size requirements, the rules otherwise make perfect sense. In my memory not one single person has ever complained about these rules; what then is the argument that would make it reasonable that any location with a level 4 airbase would have unlimited torpedoes available every day for as many aircraft as could be squeezed onto the place? It is only realistic to put some limit on this. A torpedo is a piece of machinery every bit as complex as an aircraft engine, which (in the case of IJ) must be built one by one in factories and inventories of which are carefully managed. I don't say necessarily that they should have to be built like a/c engines (although it isn't a bad idea); just that there should be some limit on availability, perhaps based on port size as in the case of PTs and of larger warships.

I just don't get it, and I play IJ. What is a reasonable argument against placing any sort of limit on the availability aerial torpedoes, which also accepts as logical that strict limits should be placed on rearming torpedoes for ships and PT boats?

edit: juliet7bravo, I did not read your post directly above before making this redundant post. Just adding my $0.02 to your voice of reason.

[juliet7bravo]

x

[dtravel]

Irrelevant, I don't think there would have been any problem with that kind of limitation on aerial torpedoes if it had been included in the original game design/release. I think the problems come from a) trying to retrofit it into existing code; and b) the lack of "other" game features that should logically go with it (player-selectable loadouts for example).

[bradfordkay]

" Here's the deal, Cid. IRL there were only a relatively few allied transports sunk by torpedo carrying aircraft.

A long time ago I did some "quick and dirty" research on shipping losses and what I found was the losses of US shipping to aerial torpedo attack was far less than what we see in WITP.



OK - so what? Players may not be playing with the same operational assignments. And IF you restrict torpedo bombing to reduce transport losses, don't you also impact warship losses exactly the same way? I don't see quite what the point of this is:

IF the capability exists, what is the problem?"


DID the capability exist? I think that the disparity in the numbers between what happened IRL versus what we are seeing in WITP is significant. I also believe that it is due to a lack of tracking torpedo production. There are apparently a lot more torpedoes available in WITP than there were IRL.

Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

[juliet7bravo]

"if it had been included in the original game design/release"

My own comments are directed to a possible WitP II or a WitP "Add-on" pack.

"There are apparently a lot more torpedoes available in WITP than there were IRL"

You might note that alot of the suicide boats, kaitens, and midget or small subs they planned/built were originally designed to launch torpedoes. However, due to the shortage of torpedoes alot of them were armed with a honking big explosive charge in their bows instead.

I find it curious that people impressed about the "level of detail" or "complexity" of WitP direct this appreciation to trivial BS that is generally far below, or far above a players putative "pay grade" in the game...while LOD/complexity on areas that should be well within a players (poorly defined) sphere of influence, and which directly impact the conduct of the war is derided. As Spock would say; "This does not compute".

I'd have to think that managing the distribution of a vital and limited resource such as torpedoes is far more pertinent to a players position in the game than managing the production of 47 different engines. Or worrying about whether a particular aviation unit is going to deign to fly missions on any particular day, or sleep in. Or managing the training of each and every patrol boat on a more or less daily basis. Or tracking each pilot.

LOD/compexity is good, pointless LOD/complexity is not.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.

This is why I said that I believe the level 4 AF restriction is already good enough when people started talking about restricting torpedo missions to even larger airfields. My feeling is that there should be some additional cost for conducting torpedo missions beyond the level 4 AF restriction without just increasing the base size required.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


... Since we cannot do that, and I think that the level 4 air base restriction is already good enough, it is my belief that increasing the supply cost (or requirement) for loading torpedoes is a possible way of bringing to the game a more realistic feel of aerial operations.

Isn't the level 4 airbase restriction already part of the rules for all Level Bombers such as Nells, Bettys, Beauforts and so forth. 7.2.2.17 indicates that if level bombers attack from an airfield less than 4 + (Max Load/6500) rounded down that they attack with an extended range bomb load. This would mean that they cannot attack with a torpedo load. Now that doesn't stop torpedo planes such as Vildebeests, Swordfishes, Kates and so forth.

This is why I said that I believe the level 4 AF restriction is already good enough when people started talking about restricting torpedo missions to even larger airfields. My feeling is that there should be some additional cost for conducting torpedo missions beyond the level 4 AF restriction without just increasing the base size required.

I disagree - there are way too many level 4 airfields. At least at level 6 airfields you would be restricted to the (many) larger and more important airfields where it's conceivable that they would stockpile torpedos.

And I think the same should go for operating 4E Hvy Bmbrs - require level 6 airfields for normal operation.

B