Matrix Games Forums

Alfred hit on several reasons why bombs can be preferable to torpedoes, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "turn to bombs"? If you can give a specific example from the spreadsheet, I can give you a better answer.

Hmm, I guess KB is good example - 4 out of 6 Kate groups are set to use bombs. Or there is Toko Ku T-1 Det flying naval search with bombs from Kompong Track with Air HQ and torpedoes available on site. (Are torpedoes used with naval search missions by the way?)

In my game the turn after setup - KB engaged a small force of CA and DMS ships - there were 7+ hits with 250 kg bombs on the CA but I somehow doubt it will go down from bombs alone.

And another torpedo related question - when the manual mentions that torpedoes can be supplied from Air HQs based on their command range. If you have Air HQ with command range 1 - does that mean it can provide torpedoes only to air units in the same hex or the same hex and +1 hex away?

ORIGINAL: simast

Alfred hit on several reasons why bombs can be preferable to torpedoes, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "turn to bombs"? If you can give a specific example from the spreadsheet, I can give you a better answer.

Hmm, I guess KB is good example - 4 out of 6 Kate groups are set to use bombs. Or there is Toko Ku T-1 Det flying naval search with bombs from Kompong Track with Air HQ and torpedoes available on site. (Are torpedoes used with naval search missions by the way?)

In my game the turn after setup - KB engaged a small force of CA and DMS ships - there were 7+ hits with 250 kg bombs on the CA but I somehow doubt it will go down from bombs alone.

And another torpedo related question - when the manual mentions that torpedoes can be supplied from Air HQs based on their command range. If you have Air HQ with command range 1 - does that mean it can provide torpedoes only to air units in the same hex or the same hex and +1 hex away?

I took a look at the spreadsheet and there are 17 instances in which the "Comments" cell includes the words "Using Bombs". The reason why can be different, so I'll address the major categories:

1) CV Air: As you noticed, 4 of the 6 Kate units in KB were switched from Torpedoes to bombs, and that is largely because carriers have a very limited number of Torpedo sorties available. Following the attack on PH, the KB torpedo inventory is severely reduced for four of the carriers (Akagi & Kaga are down to 18 of 43 while Hiryu & Soryu are at 18 of 36). Only Zuikaku and Shokaku have the full sortie load available (45 of 45). So the idea is to keep your options open, rather than risk expending every torpedo in 4 of the 6 carriers on Day2.

2) Naval Search: The Mavis and Betty/Nell can deploy either torpedoes or bombs, and personally I prefer that long range search planes have bombs for dropping on targets of opportunity (the attacks which only show up as a "ship spotted and attacked" message). Maybe that still happens if they are armed with torpedoes, but that also might make them more susceptible to AA. Possibly also gives them a chance to drop a bomb on a spotted submarine, whereas torpedoes *probably* won't work on that type of target.

That's the majority of cases, although there's a few one-offs involving training or transfer to a non-torpedo sortie CVE.

As to the Command radius, it is defined as "same hex plus radius number". So in your example, it includes the ring of hexes surrounding the HQ. You can see this in action by looking at the torpedo ability of the Nells & Betties on Roi-Namur if you add torpedo sorties to the HQ on Kwajalein.

Thank you for your detailed response Kull - this is very useful information that is hard to get out of the manual alone.

ORIGINAL: simast

Thank you for your detailed response Kull - this is very useful information that is hard to get out of the manual alone.

To avert the "Wrath of Alfred", I have to clarify that the possible risks/benefits to Naval Search from using bombs as opposed to torpedoes is not substantiated anywhere (that I know of) and is largely based on how I think the code *should* work. As for the manual, it truly is a font of all sorts of important detail, much of which only becomes apparent after many months (and even years) of experience.

Thanks Kull for all your spreadsheets, really helpful! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: simast

Thank you for your detailed response Kull - this is very useful information that is hard to get out of the manual alone.

To avert the "Wrath of Alfred", I have to clarify that the possible risks/benefits to Naval Search from using bombs as opposed to torpedoes is not substantiated anywhere (that I know of) and is largely based on how I think the code *should* work. As for the manual, it truly is a font of all sorts of important detail, much of which only becomes apparent after many months (and even years) of experience.

As I understand it, if you have a TB squadrons set to Naval Attack with torpedoes, and then set a % of the squadron to do Nav Search, the game will assume the Nav Search aircraft are carrying bombs. Torps are too heavy and too precious to carry around on a scouting mission. When I have done this with Avenger TBs I have seen (ops) reports of the searching aircraft attacking after detection and even getting a hit , but never any mention of torpedo attack.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

As I understand it, if you have a TB squadrons set to Naval Attack with torpedoes, and then set a % of the squadron to do Nav Search, the game will assume the Nav Search aircraft are carrying bombs. Torps are too heavy and too precious to carry around on a scouting mission. When I have done this with Avenger TBs I have seen (ops) reports of the searching aircraft attacking after detection and even getting a hit , but never any mention of torpedo attack.

I suspect you are correct. Naval Search (i.e. flying a patterned set of legs) by torpedo laden aircraft is a terrible idea for many reasons (nor are there any historical examples, to my knowledge), so if the code automatically accounts for that, well, it's just one more example of "good coding" by the devs.

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

As I understand it, if you have a TB squadrons set to Naval Attack with torpedoes, and then set a % of the squadron to do Nav Search, the game will assume the Nav Search aircraft are carrying bombs. Torps are too heavy and too precious to carry around on a scouting mission. When I have done this with Avenger TBs I have seen (ops) reports of the searching aircraft attacking after detection and even getting a hit , but never any mention of torpedo attack.

I suspect you are correct. Naval Search (i.e. flying a patterned set of legs) by torpedo laden aircraft is a terrible idea for many reasons (nor are there any historical examples, to my knowledge), so if the code automatically accounts for that, well, it's just one more example of "good coding" by the devs.

The good coding is already there.[:)]

See the first paragraph on page 151 of the manual.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred! Yes, it is explicitly called out in the manual. Worth noting that the next bullet down strongly implies that the same rules apply to ASW Missions (which makes total sense, of course).

Kull,

In the spreadsheet I noticed that you turn off LCU upgrades for small JAAF AF companies. Why is that?

And another question - do we really need to create Minesweeping TFs at ports? I read some old posts and I assume this should be automated as with minefield maintenance?

Thanks,

ORIGINAL: simast

Kull,

In the spreadsheet I noticed that you turn off LCU upgrades for small JAAF AF companies. Why is that?

And another question - do we really need to create Minesweeping TFs at ports? I read some old posts and I assume this should be automated as with minefield maintenance?

Thanks,

I pretty much turn off all automatic upgrades, in order to control which units get updates and when. As a general rule, units near the front-lines get priority. That said, it's level of micromanagement that you may choose to avoid.

Don't confuse Local Minesweeping and Minefield Maintenance. The former have to be present in a non-docked TF and are used to sweep for enemy minefields (should your opponent lay them). This can happen easily enough if a submarine minelayer slips into one of your ports unnoticed. Minefield maintenance on the other hand is performed by a different class of ship, the ACM, and it performs that mission while disbanded in port.

AMc's will form minesweeping TF's while disbanded in a port. They will sweep and then disband. Regular MS's will not do this and need to be formed manually.

ACM's will also do this to maintain mine fields. They will expend fuel to accomplish the mission and will have to be refueled periodically.

Hi guys, im trying to follow this spreadsheet for the first time, and i cant figure out what Xfr means here:
Can someone enlighten me please?

ORIGINAL: sajm0n

Hi guys, im trying to follow this spreadsheet for the first time, and i cant figure out what Xfr means here:

Code: Select all

Train: 100-Airfield Attack, Alt: 10K, Range: 0 
 (Send thirteen 60+ Exp Pilots to ASW Training units; Xfr in thirteen >60 Exp Pilot) 
 (Long Term Plan:  IJA Level Bomber Training Unit. 
 Add Replacement pilots and transfer them out when they get to 60+ GrdB & 60+ Exp)

Can someone enlighten me please?

Xfr is transfer.

Yeah i figured it out 5mins after i posted and came back to edit it, but answer was already there lol
To my defence it was 3am at the time [;)]

Anyway thanks Kull for this tool, im pretty sure i would never even try to finish first turn on my own [&o]
Yesterday i spent almost whole day on it and i dont feel like i progressed at all, but with this theres hope [8D]

ORIGINAL: sajm0n

Yeah i figured it out 5mins after i posted and came back to edit it, but answer was already there lol
To my defence it was 3am at the time [;)]

Anyway thanks Kull for this tool, im pretty sure i would never even try to finish first turn on my own [&o]
Yesterday i spent almost whole day on it and i dont feel like i progressed at all, but with this theres hope [8D]

You may also have been thrown off because the abbreviation is usually written 'xfer'.

Spreadsheet has a tab for "Transport for key LCUs" which lists the 2nd Div (Strat mode) as one of these .... For the life of me, I can't find a "2nd Div" either in the game unit listing or the spreadsheet tab "Japan Setup" .....

Am I merely having a senior moment and not seeing it ?

ORIGINAL: scout1

Spreadsheet has a tab for "Transport for key LCUs" which lists the 2nd Div (Strat mode) as one of these .... For the life of me, I can't find a "2nd Div" either in the game unit listing or the spreadsheet tab "Japan Setup" .....

Am I merely having a senior moment and not seeing it ?

2nd Div. could refer to an HQ rather than a Division ...

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: scout1

Spreadsheet has a tab for "Transport for key LCUs" which lists the 2nd Div (Strat mode) as one of these .... For the life of me, I can't find a "2nd Div" either in the game unit listing or the spreadsheet tab "Japan Setup" .....

Am I merely having a senior moment and not seeing it ?

2nd Div. could refer to an HQ rather than a Division ...

Here's a screen shot .... is an Inf Div .....

ORIGINAL: scout1

Spreadsheet has a tab for "Transport for key LCUs" which lists the 2nd Div (Strat mode) as one of these .... For the life of me, I can't find a "2nd Div" either in the game unit listing or the spreadsheet tab "Japan Setup" .....

Am I merely having a senior moment and not seeing it ?

The Japanese 2nd (Sendai) division is split up all over the place at game start, both on land and embarked on transports. Consequently, it reads as a group of battalions and regiments rather than as a division. Prior to being assigned to the 16th Army, most of it had been serving with the Eastern Army in Japan proper.