RHS non critical comprehensive update 7.945 uploaded

[Bogo Mil]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If my understanding is correct, they will implement tracking of some devices - so you then may get limited torpedoes.

If I got it right, it is already in the game engine. Give the torpedoes a replacement rate and there will be a global pool of them. It's even used in stock (for the Ohka).

But I don't think it is a good idea to use this feature as it is now. First, you can not do anything to save torpedoes (e.g. order Betties to do naval strikes with bombs or restrict strikes to valuable targets only). Second, these pools would be hidden - the player can not see, if he has 10'000 or 10 torpedoes left. I think using the feature as it is now would lead to eratic and frustrating behaviour.

In my games (which require vastly more human effort on the logistic side) we track every last torpedo by model and location in theater.

Sounds interesting. Do you combine witp with a lot of pen&paper work, or which game is it?

[el cid again]

I am ancient. I did several generations of mechanical War in the Pacific games - often called Sid in the Pacific by players - generally in Seattle. They require dozens of players - and serious logistical tracking - and actual air and naval navigation on 5 million to 1 air navigation charts (GNC series if you know maps). That permits tracking to the nearest nautical mile for your STRATEGIC movement. They are double blind games - that is - in addition to the normal two (or more) sides of players - there is a player in the middle - or even a team - called judge(s). This permits truly limited but sophisticated intelligence reports for both sides. As well - the judge (me) acts as staff - answering player technical questions and explaining how to do this or that. Players are usually serving or former military people - with some gamers and some newcomers - assigned in layered teams - that is - there are strategic and operational commanders.

These games are multi layered: you essentially plan operations - but these may result in tactical battles. Often - a small tactical action is resolved by the judge. But if it is big or interesting - players then are assigned to do tactical battles. Once - there was a gigantic surface action at Balikpapan - virtually every Allied warship in the theater was present - and the situation was so interesting it was gamed at a convention called Dragonflight in Seattle - billed as "the largest naval battle since Jutland." This tactical action was resolved using lead models and Fletcher Pratt style rules - and numbers of tactical players were recruited from outside the strategic game it was a part of. The Allies should have won - and lost decisively - for a host of reasons.

The Allies had made a strategic decision to secretly send the USN carriers to the Indian Ocean - circumnavigating Australia without liberty or refueling in port. They came up on the ocean side of Java - and the Japanese had no clue. Japan was conducting a bold centrifugal offensive - and part of that involved siezing Balikpapan by surprise - before it could be damaged. A minimal force covered the landings there - so minimal the two players assigned were actually novice high school students in their first game. Many players were serious professionals so it was somewhat amazing what happened. The first clue the Japanese had was when a submarine in the Sunda Strait saw the American TF passing.
The game was played in person - with a room full of "commanders" - and I went to these two boys and told them of the radio report (one commanded two light carriers - the other a surface force including transports). They immediately launched every plane on their decks and sent off a message to the fleet commander at Saigon - more or less "help" - he responed by sending his heavy units - two old 14 inch gun battleships - and escorts. He also flew in fighters to cover them. Then I went to the US "Halsey" and told him he had a report of a small inbound strike. Fool that he was - he was covered by Dutch fighters based on land as well as his Wildcats - he decided not to stop refueling operations or revise his formation. He lost the bet - there were only a dozen Kates in the strike (not all had made it to the target) - and half of those were shot down. But the rest had a perfect target - and the air group leader kept it simple: all come in together on one bearing 45 degrees off the starboard bow of USS Enterprise. She was sailing slow and strait - hooked up to a tanker - and she took four fish - capsized - and took her planes and pilots to the bottom. This pitted 2 CVLs vs 1 CV - a fairly even fight - and by the time they stopped exchanging strikes - there were no carrier bombers left to speak of. So the Allies decided to go in with all their cruisers - and even sent USS Lexington in as another cruiser - she had eight inch guns - something like 26 CA and CL (and CV/CA???) - backed up by three times that many destroyers. Japan had only a small force - the original 2 CA - 2 BB - and each force had a CL and half a dozen DD = total 2 BB, 2 CA, 2 CL, 12 DD. But the tactical action was done with individual ship commanders - individual torpedo tracks - individual salvo estimation by the players then measured on the floor. I have never seen anything like it - the Allied force commander ordered his line to turn from line abreast to line ahead at the perfect time to present broadside targets to over a hundred Long Lance torpedoes - and the odds changed in a single 3 minute turn. There were so many Allied ships - and the commanders were so sure the enemy was out of ammunition - it went on and on and on. But the Japanese players had only one disaster - a destroyer sank a Japanese CA by firing torpedoes when she was on their track. The Allies kept making bad choices - and managed to set an all time record - getting in the way of 1 out of every 6 torpedoes fired by the enemy - not statistical torpedoes - but actually individually tracked torpedoes at their real speed and bearing - each position marked on the floor every tactical turn by a judge. I have never seen anything like it - but you can do that in a layered game - have detail tactical resolution of important actions. The Japanese were clever - they split fire - pitting half batteries on each ship vs different targets - so each BB or CA was engaging 2 targets with main guns at one time - and yet another target with secondary guns. One girl - in her first game - had the best range estimation eye I have ever seen - she would kill two ships with 14 inch hits every turn. [Fletcher Pratt systems use estimated ranges by human eye to simulate rangefinder estimation - and it works very well - duplicating historical battles quite often]