"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[juliet7bravo]

[xxx

[treespider]

From a july 31, 2005 post Mike Wood indicated that the 1000lb routine seemed to account for random die roll and supply level ...here is what he wrote:

Hello...

Below is a paraphrase of the code involved:

If(target is task force and plane carries at least 4- 500lb GP bombs and is allied level bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made)
{

If the year is 1943 or later, there is enough supply at the base and data base slot #205 has a penetration > 100 (2000 lb GP bomb)
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one fourth that many 2000 lb GP bombs.
}
else
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one half that many 1000 lb GP bombs.
}

}

If(target is task force and plane carries a 1000lb GP bomb and is allied dive bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made and date is September 1942 or later)
{
dive bomber may exchange 1000lb GP bomb for a 1000lb AP bomb
}

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

Add this for torpedoes and be done with it...

[Demosthenes]

Amen

ORIGINAL: treespider

From a july 31, 2005 post Mike Wood indicated that the 1000lb routine seemed to account for random die roll and supply level ...here is what he wrote:

Hello...

Below is a paraphrase of the code involved:

If(target is task force and plane carries at least 4- 500lb GP bombs and is allied level bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made)
{

If the year is 1943 or later, there is enough supply at the base and data base slot #205 has a penetration > 100 (2000 lb GP bomb)
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one fourth that many 2000 lb GP bombs.
}
else
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one half that many 1000 lb GP bombs.
}

}

If(target is task force and plane carries a 1000lb GP bomb and is allied dive bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made and date is September 1942 or later)
{
dive bomber may exchange 1000lb GP bomb for a 1000lb AP bomb
}

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

Add this for torpedoes and be done with it...

[Andrew Brown]

I currently lean more towards choice number 2. There is a difference between this case and the Allied 1000lb bomb selection. In the Allied case, the choice is between two bomb types, so the mission parameters are unchanged. In this case, the choice would be between bombs and torpedoes, which affects how the mission plays out, and presumably the effects of CAP and AA. I'm not sure I like the idea of random selection between torpedo and bomb attack.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I currently lean more towards choice number 2. There is a difference between this case and the Allied 1000lb bomb selection. In the Allied case, the choice is between two bomb types, so the mission parameters are unchanged. In this case, the choice would be between bombs and torpedoes, which affects how the mission plays out, and presumably the effects of CAP and AA. I'm not sure I like the idea of random selection between torpedo and bomb attack.

You don't have to make it completely random...you can weight the chance.

[tsimmonds]

I voted for #3 before I read the explanations (that's just the kind of guy I am). However, having read the explanation behind #2, I think that would be better. The player has control over where his "stock(s)" of torpedoes are located. The player will be unable to have them follow his a/c as he transfers them all over the map. I like it.

As a matter of fact, I like it so much, I think #2 should be the rule controlling the use of 4E as well.

[33Vyper]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

Amen

ORIGINAL: treespider

From a july 31, 2005 post Mike Wood indicated that the 1000lb routine seemed to account for random die roll and supply level ...here is what he wrote:

Hello...

Below is a paraphrase of the code involved:

If(target is task force and plane carries at least 4- 500lb GP bombs and is allied level bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made)
{

If the year is 1943 or later, there is enough supply at the base and data base slot #205 has a penetration > 100 (2000 lb GP bomb)
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one fourth that many 2000 lb GP bombs.
}
else
{
bomber may exchange 500lb GP bombs for for one half that many 1000 lb GP bombs.
}

}

If(target is task force and plane carries a 1000lb GP bomb and is allied dive bomber and range is normal and pilot experience >69 and die rolls are made and date is September 1942 or later)
{
dive bomber may exchange 1000lb GP bomb for a 1000lb AP bomb
}

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

Add this for torpedoes and be done with it...

I am liking the coded version to fix this problem. It should not be a simple variable such as supply >=10000 and you suddenly get torpedoes. It should be dependent on plane type, year, supply source, target types, target location, size of airbase etc... yes I know...in a perfect world. But let us try to get it at least based on some type of historical formula. I do agree that torps should not be available at the drop of a hat or be growing off in the rice patties with the 16inch BB shells.

[;)]


oh yea....I would have voted for #4 but realized that WITP I is not the place for this.....WITP II is where that could be

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I currently lean more towards choice number 2. There is a difference between this case and the Allied 1000lb bomb selection. In the Allied case, the choice is between two bomb types, so the mission parameters are unchanged. In this case, the choice would be between bombs and torpedoes, which affects how the mission plays out, and presumably the effects of CAP and AA. I'm not sure I like the idea of random selection between torpedo and bomb attack.

I have high hope that something will be done! [:D]


BTW, it would be really nice that something like (see below) would accompany the above... [;)]


Ammo replenishment regarding port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I am and I always was for any realistic change that slows down the game... IMHO current WitP allows "abuse" of 5x-10x acceleration by players (i.e. things happening much much much faster than they should)...

[denisonh]

And of course an AE could provide the required ammunition as well at any base dot or higher.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I currently lean more towards choice number 2. There is a difference between this case and the Allied 1000lb bomb selection. In the Allied case, the choice is between two bomb types, so the mission parameters are unchanged. In this case, the choice would be between bombs and torpedoes, which affects how the mission plays out, and presumably the effects of CAP and AA. I'm not sure I like the idea of random selection between torpedo and bomb attack.

I have high hope that something will be done! [:D]


BTW, it would be really nice that something like (see below) would accompany the above... [;)]


Ammo replenishment regarding port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I am and I always was for any realistic change that slows down the game... IMHO current WitP allows "abuse" of 5x-10x acceleration by players (i.e. things happening much much much faster than they should)...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Are these airplanes or hovercraft? [&:]

Holy cow are they low!

[spence]

Possibly mistaken but I think the photo is of attacks that took place in Nov 42 off Guadalcanal. The low altitude didn't help them score any hits if that's the case though I think one crashed into USS San Francisco. I also recall film of Jap torpedo bombers attacking at very very low altitude later in the war I think. Since they could launch from 200 ft or so I wonder what advantage they hoped to gain so low. It would seem a tiny flinch on the stick and "that's all folks" for plane and pilot.

[NemRod]

I voted for #1. Tell me how to keep my supplies at the base I want them and I may vote for #2.How can I keep the supplies I want in say the defensive line Rangoon, Moulmein, Tavoy? Every LCU or squadron move between these bases or even between Mandalay and Myitkina causes erratic ( for me) moves of supplies in the whole area.

An other problem:
Let's consider the situation of Saigon at the beginning of scen 15. It has 60 000 supplies and there are over 100 Betties/Nells. With a 1000 supplies requirement you will see 60 bombers launching torpedoes and 50 with bombs. It's OK for a convoy, but against force Z I would prefer to rest the planes equiped with uneffective bombs.They will suffer losses for nothing. With a 2000 supplies requirement it means 30 planes with torpedoes and...well, I prefer not even think about it

Why give the AI more occasions to ruin your day?Aren't there enough with the game as it is?[:)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all

ORIGINAL: spence

Possibly mistaken but I think the photo is of attacks that took place in Nov 42 off Guadalcanal.

It is (AFAIK),

Since they could launch from 200 ft or so I wonder what advantage they hoped to gain so low. It would seem a tiny flinch on the stick and "that's all folks" for plane and pilot.

Protection form fighters and AAA (very difficult to target such low flying targets)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Charles2222]

Dodging radar. That or trying to prove to themselves (and others) what elite pilots they were. I recall the PH attack had quite a few stories of pilots lfying at tree-top level, which must had been some fighters. Is there any possibility that some of the AA guns couldn't train so low?

[wild_Willie2]

An other problem:
Let's consider the situation of Saigon at the beginning of scen 15. It has 60 000 supplies and there are over 100 Betties/Nells. With a 1000 supplies requirement you will see 60 bombers launching torpedoes and 50 with bombs. It's OK for a convoy, but against force Z I would prefer to rest the planes equiped with uneffective bombs.They will suffer losses for nothing. With a 2000 supplies requirement it means 30 planes with torpedoes and...well, I prefer not even think about it

I agree, bomb should do a LOT more damage against targets, even armored ones, why not give torp planes a default load of 1000 LBS bombs if they do not pass the torpedo check ??...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: NemRod

Let's consider the situation of Saigon at the beginning of scen 15. It has 60 000 supplies and there are over 100 Betties/Nells. With a 1000 supplies requirement you will see 60 bombers launching torpedoes and 50 with bombs. It's OK for a convoy, but against force Z I would prefer to rest the planes equiped with uneffective bombs.They will suffer losses for nothing. With a 2000 supplies requirement it means 30 planes with torpedoes and...well, I prefer not even think about it

Why give the AI more occasions to ruin your day?Aren't there enough with the game as it is?[:)]

Let us not forget that not all Betty/Nell bombers that attacked Z-Force carried torpedoes - many of them carried bombs (i.e. it was not 100% torpedo strike)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[XENXEN]

yes give them a 800kg bomb or 500kg bomb if they fail torpedo check and are flying against CA or BB's and 250kg bombs if they fly against cargo ships just use 250kg bombs. But the program
probably can't do that

I voted #1 because i see no problem in the use of torpedos from small bases (4)

[Arkady]

I voted for #1
As you can not force inland supplies movement between bases ...

[NemRod]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


Let us not forget that not all Betty/Nell bombers that attacked Z-Force carried torpedoes - many of them carried bombs (i.e. it was not 100% torpedo strike)!


Leo "Apollo11"

I have no problem with mixed strikes , just with the way the AI will chose targets.
The same with supply movement, I don't trust AI.
My point is that #2 needs major improvements of AI to work well.

[Akos Gergely]

I also voted for number 3 but number 2 seems to be much better after reading through.

What is more important that this should be adressed for CV based VT squads as well!!!! Most CVs carried only 25-45 torps so it was only enough for 2-3 fully fledged attacks!!!