Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: m10bob

BTW, IIRC, in testing, I believe it was found that if the "kamikaze" trigger is hit, ALL Japanese planes became kamikaze, and this was the end of any other kind of missions for the Japanese AI.
I hope this can be altered.

this is not true for WITP games, only the groups that are set to kamikaze ARE kamikazes then. They can´t be switched back though.

What he means is that in AI games the AI keeps turning all of its squadrons into kamikazes until there are no others left.

Affirmative...TY

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Hey Mr. TheElf, how about a late war AAR. Perhaps an invasion of Iwo Jima or Okinawa.
Something with working Kamikazes[8|].

Strike that Kamikazes part. Evedently you'se guys have seen them.
So Mr. TheElf[:D], howabout a AAR of an invasion of Kyushu (Op. Coronet/Olympic???).
Something with some working very late war aircraft, even Jets maybe[:'(].
Pretty please with a beer on top!!!

Thought I'd revive this one because of its earlier posts about Japanese CVL's not being torpedo strike-capable, and ways of reproducing this in the game.

Well, maybe that was all a bit premature.

Some digging by Brady on the j-aircraft board has elicited information about torpedo stowage aboard small Japanese carriers (CVL and CVE) in this thread. It appears that most light carriers carried some torpedoes in their magazines, albeit some of the CVE's seem to have had this capacity so they could function as torpedo transports. Amongst the CVL's, it suggests that Ryuho carried 12, whilst Zuiho carried only 6. It seems unlikely that a torpedo stowage capacity this small was implemented in order to equip these ships as torpedo transports (like the CVE's?), in which case the obvious alternative is that this provision was included so that the airgroup could have a torpedo strike capability.

This link just posted draws attention to entries in Ryujo's air group records indicating that she launched two anti-shipping strikes off Vizagapatam on 6 April 1942 that included torpedo-carrying B5N's (whether model 1 or 2 unstated). Admittedly these strikes were small, and the torpedo plane element even smaller, but if the record has been accurately translated it appears that even the light carriers could get enough wind over the deck to get a torpedo-laden B5N airborne.

If correct, this won't be the first time conventional wisdom in non-Japanese speaking countries has called for re-evaluation, as with the 'gospel according to Fuchida Mitsuo'. If we can get over the language barrier we may still have some surprises in store from original Japanese sources.

IJN CVLs are torpedo capable in AE, but they aren't chock full of torps. 

Good to have confirmation that this capability is still there. Reduced stowage should, justifiably, help to tone down the potency of the attack planes embarked in light carriers.

So no more Baby KB flying torpedo attack missions every turn sinking everything in sight in the SRA? [8D]

Out of curiosity, how are torpedos replenished? Are torpedos replenished when fuel is replenished? So for instance if I have a replenishment TF near by will the torps be replenished when the CVLs or CVEs replenish? [&:]

Everyone say *Woof* and hopefully JWE will give us the skinny. He forged the Great AE Torpedo Compromise of 2009, and both JFBs and AFBs seemed agreeable. 

Woof! [:D]

Woof! [:D]

Woof! again

Ah, **WOOF**! [:D]

Channeling my German Shepherd Baron....

WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!

Down, boy!

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Channeling my German Shepherd Baron....

WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!WOOF!!!

Down, boy!

By the way, what are we barking at?????

ORIGINAL: Cathartes
Everyone say *Woof* and hopefully JWE will give us the skinny. He forged the Great AE Torpedo Compromise of 2009, and both JFBs and AFBs seemed agreeable. 

Sorry, friends from OZ came by and we went sailing; gorgeous breeze. Got home and all I could hear was woof, woof, woof.

Torpedoes load just like any other piece of ammo. The rearm cost was reduced from the weight of the weapon (as in Witp-1) to 2 x the effect (just like other ammo). This is now the new loadcost, which is the rearm cost.

This number is a threshold. You need a port with that size rearm value, or a smaller port with lots of Naval Support squads, or an AKE, or an AE, or an AS (if you’re trying to rearm a sub) or an AD (if it’s a DD) or an AGP (if it’s a PT). AKE/AE/AD/AS/AGP ships need to have a “capacity” equal to or greater than the rearm cost.

If all that’s cool (or any one of them), you must also consume supply points for every torp you load. If a torp has a rearm cost of 2160, you can only rearm at a base (or tender) with rearm value 2160 or more, then, if you need 16 torps, you also consume 18 tons of supply. (2160 x 16)/2000 = 34560/2000 = 17.28 game don’t keep fractions, it’s next integer up or down (in this case, I think it’s up).

A level-7 port has a rearm value of 5500. A level-6 port has a rearm value of 700. But you can get to 2160 in a level-7 by having 292 Naval Support squads in the base (gee, just like a real Naval Base, wow !). Each NavSup squad contributes 5 rearm points. They speed up load/unload things too.

Geez, the level of "if/and/or" statements in JWE's post has my head spinning, and that's just for reloading torpedoes.  So you won't be able to just park an AS in some far away base and have it replenish unlimited numbers of submarines any more?  What if you send a Dutch sub to a US base; will you be able to reload torpedoes into the foreign sub no matter what nationality the base is?

For example, Repulse has 15" guns; if she needs more ammo, will she be able to get it from any Allied base if there's enough supply there and the base is large enough?

Oh, yeah, carrier stuff. There are now two devices in the weapon slots; sorties (just like WiTP-1) and new torpedo sorties (at least for those carriers with a/g capable of them). When you fly a sortie, you consume a sortie point. When you are out of sortie points, you don’t fly.

Sorties also have a rearm cost. Sorties cost 500 points. Torp sorties cost 1500 points. You have to still follow the rules and find a port with the proper threshold number, or an AKE or an AE (with the proper capacity number). Once you do, you consume supply in the same manner as other ammo: [# of sorties x (500 or 1500)]/2000 = supply consumption in tons.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
For example, Repulse has 15" guns; if she needs more ammo, will she be able to get it from any Allied base if there's enough supply there and the base is large enough?

yes. all that's necessary (and sufficient) is port or proper tender with requisite rearm threshold and sufficient supply.

I read this and feel I'll be doing the naval version of "Kelly's Heroes" to get torpedoes. Pictures of Don Rickles come to mind. [:D]

We need a reference sheet that has all the needed formulae like this.

There’s a table in the manual. Looks like this. Top row is the native Port Rearm value, by port size. 1st column is the weapon, 2nd column is the rearm cost. Please note ONLY SOME weapons will be included. For the rest, please think a bit and interpolate.

Next columns are whether a port of given size can do the deed (y) or, if not, how many Naval Support squads you have to have to rearm that weapon. Last column is what kinds of tenders are appropriate to rearm that weapon (presuming, of course, that the tender has “capacity” equal to or greater than the weapon rearm cost.

Port-7 can do just about anything. Port-6 begins to have hefty NavSup requirements for BB guns. Smaller ports can handle smaller guns. Naval Support squads are very important. Tenders are very important. Your Base Forces are now highly useful (and fragile) and making up an efficient fleet train becomes mandatory

This is just a sample – it just shows SOME guns, SOME torps and sorties. DCs, mines, etc.. work the same way. No warranty, things might have to be adjusted, but this is pretty close.