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

[el cid again]

Often the numbers quoted for maximum range by various sources were either theorectical or obtained by testing under optimal, not wartime, conditions

Actually, this is not the case. Almost always maximum range is cited in typical configuration. Almost any large plane can greatly exceed that by special measures - and routinely did. Joe cited cases where US bombers flew missions much greater than the game allows - but they stripped armor, carried ferry tanks - etc - something we cannot easily simulate. Reference books do not usually give true maximum (ferry) range - they give the ferry range for a typical configuration as delivered - which is quite a bit less than what is possible. The Condor flew OPERATIONAL missions FARTHER than its reference book FERRY range - ARMED no less - by the expedient of carrying 55 gallon drums of fuel - and hand pumps!
I believe they carried 1 gallon gas cans on the Doolittle raid too. Lots of ways to change the book value, and not always for ferry missions.

[el cid again]

The issue is; "did they (Allied or Japanese) have enough torpedoes, and the support, to have them forward deployed at each and every airfield capable of supporting a torpedo capable aircraft"?

No - you missed his point: the real Japanese staged planes - and were good at it according to US intelligence. The game artificially restricts you. So it is really a bit of a compensation that torpedoes are "stored" at more places - in reality I could torpedo up at Truck and refuel at Lae - even if they had none at Lae - and get de facto range from the forward field. That was the object of Lunga - it was to be a forward field to refuel bombers.

[el cid again]

So are you okay with every naval attack being launched to be carrying torpedoes? Does that not seem a little off-kilter to you? I'm not trying to put restrictions on the Japanese, as what Bib B and I have requested is to have all torpedo carrying aircraft pass a torpedo check, same as allied LBs do with the 1000lb bomb.

I think it is artificial to pick on one weapon. And the bombs are not really graded right either. The effects of bigger bombs are not well simulated. I am experimenting with changing that - you want a big bomb against a ship - but not against infantry. We need to have more loading/mission options for players - and better ratings for the weapons. But IF you have the ordnance to fly - that should be enough. Here I think the bigger issue is that rice can be torpedoes, bombs, machine gun bullets, you name it.
I want separate AMMO tracking. I also don't like that rice can become AVGAS. I want fuel to be ALL POL. These two changes will restrict a LOT of missions - planes do not fly without general supplies, fuel and ammo - all separately tracked.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The game is prejudiced in favor of Allied damage control - for just cause - but it is ahistorical when the war began. The crews were not at action stations, the ships were in a peacetime condition of readiness, and most ships had not been intensively training in damage control - something that changed very soon! The special routines for the first attack allow more hits - but do nothing about the inability to deal with them present on that day.

Don't tell Paul Eddington that.

Notice that you CANNOT score as well as the Japanese did - which should the AVERAGE score if the game were calibrated properly.

Why? Maybe the Japanese did as well as humanly possible in the historical event, and game results should reflect that kind of success only rarely. Then again, maybe the historical PH attack was a dismal failure and just about all game results should be better.

Who knows? The game certainly doesn't. I don't think any of the rest of us do, either.

[Charles2222]

What he is saying, is that if you are shooting for the historic as the model, then that should be the mid-point. It's only when you get into hypothetics that whether a nation was doing beyond or below their capabilities, matter.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

What he is saying, is that if you are shooting for the historic as the model, then that should be the mid-point. It's only when you get into hypothetics that whether a nation was doing beyond or below their capabilities, matter.

See, I absolutely disagree with this. Midway happened historically. Should that result be the "midpoint?"

Further, when it comes to a nation "doing beyond or below their capabilities" [sic], you are NOT a "nation" in WitP. You are a commander with a specific, limited role. You are not the Yamato people. You are not Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hirohito, Mussolini, or the rest of them lame dudes. You take what you get and make the most of it, come hell or high water, and figure out after the big medicine has been laid to rest at Little Bighorn how well you did (the role of victory conditions, something that gets completely lost in these discussions).

As far as I'm concerned, most people whose posts I have read in the "let's change this and let's mess with that" threads miss the fun of the game. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Give 'em hell for 18 months. The hell with you after that. I want to be Yamamoto, Yamashita, and the rest, not production god.

I remember once upon a time being assigned a Marine platoon as "security" for a covert mission I had the misfortune of leading. The situation was bad enough, but Lt. Spamferbranes wanted to go out and be John Wayne. I didn't want to play John Wayne then (and probably a good thing, too, because my people were Air Farce intel), and I don't want to play it now.

Just gimme a fast ship going in harm's way.

[Charles2222]

OTOH, suppose we are being Hitlers (and other leaders probably fit into this)? Hitler made quite a few fundamental changes, often changes we cannot do here, to much that was being done. He had orders for de-commisioning ship crews for surface to submarine, and it happened. He decided what and where to attack for the most part. He designed and grew the SS. He eliminated the SA. He wanted the ME262 as a bomber (one of his worser moves). He delayed going into total war ecomony for quite a long time, and a myriad of other micro-commanding. In fact the thing with Hitler was that some of the generals joked grimly that you couldn't move the sentry from the door to the winfow without Hitler's approval.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

OTOH, suppose we are being Hitlers

This other hand is beside the point. We are not Hitlers in this game. We are subject to what Hitler says and gives us to work with.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Charles2222]

Yeah sure. But you don't know what evil may dwell in the hearts of players. I mean, we have people wanting to eliminate Glens for crying out loud. Doesn't that sound a bit like micro-managing Hitlerism? [X(]

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"This is pure "strawman". The Betty's TORPEDO range of 600 miles exceeded every other aircraft in the world when carrying a tropedo. And a twin-engined Bomber with a bombing range of 900 miles and an extended bombing range of 1200+ miles is rightly "renowned for its extremely long range". The only thing that "doesn't pass the common sense test" is your argument."

Excuse me? If there's a "strawman" in the house it's yours. I've quoted plenty of facts, what you've posted is the equivalent of "Oh yeah!?!?!".

How do we get from an AC meeting and exceeding in every way a specification requiring a range, with torp, of 2300 miles to a "TORPEDO range of 600 miles" (1200)? Are we to understand that in fact the G4M1 DID NOT meet the service specification given? Where did you reference that interesting fact at? When every reference from Francillon onwards that I've seen supports a range (exceeding the spec) in excess of 3000 miles fully armed. The only ref given here that disgrees is Lundstrom, and it was pretty ambiguous as to whether he was referring to range or radius...and the range he quoted was almost exactly half the armed range quoted in other sources.

Further, let's look at contemporary twin-engined bombers;

B-25 Mitchell:1350 miles w/3,000 lbs of bombs
B-26 Marauder: 1150 w/4000 lbs of bombs
Beaufort: 1000 miles w/torpedo
Beaufighter: 1400 miles w/torpedo

So how does this jive with a "TORPEDO range of 600 miles exceeded every other aircraft in the world when carrying a tropedo."? Sure doesn't look like anything to write home about to me for a flying soda can full of gas, let alone tossing any "renown" for "extremely long range" its way. We've got the B-25 (with a far higher payload than 800kg) and the Beaufighter w/torp exceeding 600 miles, the Beaufort coming in at 500, and the B-26 just falling short.

Especially when the Betty was a pupose built AC specifically designed to be an extremely long range torpedo bomber with a combat range surpassing 2300 miles...with a torpedo. Or how a 800kg bomb load gives the Betty a longer range than a Betty with a 800kg torpedo...both carried internally, and with the doors off. Or even where you come up with an "extended bombing range of 1200+ miles"...do you have a ref for that? I'll settle for a ref listing an "extended bombing range" period.

Or is it just that people don't WANT to believe the Betty had some truly serious legs? But have absolutely nothing to base that on besides "Oh Yeah!?!?!"?

So please, back it up with something before you start tossing the "strawman" accusations around. Facts please. Or even a convincing argument based on personal experience and judgement.

You compare "apples and oranges" and them scream because you can't have pineaple. I'm talking COMBAT RADIUS. At what distance can these A/C carry out an attack and return to their base. These numbers are "max range figures:
B-25 Mitchell:1350 miles w/3,000 lbs of bombs
B-26 Marauder: 1150 w/4000 lbs of bombs
Beaufort: 1000 miles w/torpedo
Beaufighter: 1400 miles w/torpedo
And as you pointed out, on this scale the Betty is rated for 2,000 miles! So "the Betty had some truly serious legs" using either your figures or mine. And your arguement IS a "strawman one".

[Nikademus]

Mog.....

do you think there are enough votes in for the Poll yet?

[Ron Saueracker]

This is a poll? Thought this was a Brady Bash![:D]

[Brady]

Wow, this a touchy topic or What I go off to work and all heck breaks lose.[:)]


Realy all this thread is about is:

Do we realy want to change the existing rule in the game for Torp use?

The chloice of using Suply as a determiner is IMO a realy bad one as no mater what it will favor the Alies and slight Japan in an area she should not be. This would be bad for everyone as it would make for a poor gameing experance.

We have them make a switch to alow us to NOT use Torps and instead take a Big Bomb to hit ship's, semas simple enough, would alow for hose rules for those so inclined.

Or they make a modificatrion to the game to make torps something we nead move around as a suply item.

BTW The Japanese loaded these on normal ships, so we dont nead to get crazey with speciality ships to move them around.

................

Honestly I realy dont have a problem with how they are in game now, I would like the Make them and track them option but I dont think they will take the time to do it. I am more afraid they will make it a Suply isue though, and I would hate to see that.[:(]

[mogami]

Hi, How much Zen would be required to have torpedos where needed if the player had to track them?

At start of game
Home Islands, Formosa, saigon Truk and Kwajalean are the only bases Japan controls that are level 4 or higher airfields.

Japan goes to close SRA by capturing level 4 airifelds (So among the transports that unload the baseforces and supply place a trasnport wiith torpedos.

The Japanese have 10xDaitai and 5xChutai of long range bombers (315 total aircraft capable of flying torpedo missions. )

So to fly every possible aircraft Japan would need to place 630 torpedos and then replace usage. (The Japanese player could follow at least two paths here. Move torpedos to aircraft or aircraft to torpedos. )
Knowing where my 10 Daitai and 5 Chutai were going to move would aid movement of torpedo stocks.

In dec 1941 I move to capture Davao a size 4 airfield. I plan on moving 2 Daitai and 1 Chutai there. Part of invasion force is transport with 126 torpedoes........

No I think it is more important we track torpedo stocks then worry about them being where they are required. It is way too easy to have them where required if the stock drawn from is unlimited. Most of Japanese operations are to aquire size 4 airfields.

The fact is the Gilberts require months before any size 4 is available (so torpedos will not be consumed but there is plenty of time to move them in advance of their being required.)
Rabaul takes months, Palau months, Saipan area months, Wake and Marcus months, (Outside the Home Islands only Indo China/Formosa Truk and Kwajalean can supply long range torpedo aircraft. So the real issue here is not unlimited torpedo attacks across the board it's Rabaul after is is built to Port Moresby and bases Japan builds expressly for the purpose of being part of his air defense barrier. (the bases every Japanese player who deploys a long range group would deploy a stock of torpedos to.)

By the time the airfields are built the only Allied bases in range of Japanese bombers will be major Allied bases in south Pacific and India.
I'm not saying that WITP does not have too many attacks only that to "fix" it we need to actually track the supply and location of torpedos because if the Japanese player has a stock of torpedos it is not difficult for him to figure out where to send them.

(Divide existing stock by 25. Now each Daitai gets 2 shares and each Chutai gets 1 share. Decide where groups are going to move as war develops.


A technical question. Could a Betty/Nell land with a torpedo loaded? Or does the aircraft have to jettison before landing. (If a Betty/Nell could land with a torpedo I'm outta this debate.)

[Brady]

"A technical question. Could a Betty/Nell land with a torpedo loaded? Or does the aircraft have to jettison before landing. (If a Betty/Nell could land with a torpedo I'm outta this debate.) "

Ya they could, I am almost 100% certain they could. ot that they would nescessarly want to but they could. For the PoW atack they laoded up Avation fuel and the Torps for the Port atack on Singapore at Formosa and sent the ship ahead to meat them in IndoChina, it arived I belave the day before they did and the torps and gas were their waiting for them.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
No I think it is more important we track torpedo stocks then worry about them being where they are required. It is way too easy to have them where required if the stock drawn from is unlimited.

OK, if that became the case, you would obviously need to allow a player the ability to avoid having his torpedo stocks frittered away through an opponents baiting tactics, etc.

[spence]

OK - have finished backtracking through turns 12/08/41 to 2/2/42 (last turn played)...December 7th torpedo attacks unknown but attack was not that exceptional so figure 2 Daitai (42 torps included in total).

As of 2/2/42 there have been 704 aerial torpedo launches by B5s/G3s/G4s (around 20% of total production of aerial torpedos up to that time).

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Often the numbers quoted for maximum range by various sources were either theorectical or obtained by testing under optimal, not wartime, conditions

Actually, this is not the case. Almost always maximum range is cited in typical configuration. Almost any large plane can greatly exceed that by special measures - and routinely did. Joe cited cases where US bombers flew missions much greater than the game allows - but they stripped armor, carried ferry tanks - etc - something we cannot easily simulate. Reference books do not usually give true maximum (ferry) range - they give the ferry range for a typical configuration as delivered - which is quite a bit less than what is possible. The Condor flew OPERATIONAL missions FARTHER than its reference book FERRY range - ARMED no less - by the expedient of carrying 55 gallon drums of fuel - and hand pumps!
I believe they carried 1 gallon gas cans on the Doolittle raid too. Lots of ways to change the book value, and not always for ferry missions.

I think you missed my point Cid. What I was saying was that the published standard and extended ranges were determined before the aircraft ever saw combat. Yes, they were loaded to wartime weights during range testing but they didn't fly under wartime conditions. Typically these aircraft were tested by either the manufacturers or by each service after acceptance trials. For example, the B-17 theoretical wartime range was determined well before the shooting started.

They didn't use aircraft that were beat up and worn out from months of combat service. They didn't use aircraft that were suffering from a shortage of spare parts or that were held together with the proverbial chewing gum and baling wire. They didn't use fuel that had sat in barrels on the edge of a jungle, subject to tropical heat and humidity. And they didn't have to form up in the midst of tropicals thunder bumpers. And of course they certainly didn't have to contend with someone trying to kill them.

Most missions, at least Allied ones, allowed for a certain reserve time, typically about 1/2 hour worth of fuel. This was in addition to any fuel allowances made for forming up and the climbout. Long range naval strike missions probably allowed a bit more to account for any necessary search time that might be required.

And that's why the published ranges are overly optimistic. They were obtained under SIMULATED wartime conditions. All of these factors worked to reduce available range. Its just not realistic to say that a particular aircraft could fly the same number of miles under true wartime conditions as under simulated wartime conditions.

Chez