What ammo restrictions should be placed on carrier aircraft?

[Drex]

No plane , fighter or bomber, would attempt to land with torps or bombs. If not used, they jettison them. that may even be true today.

[Xargun]

It seems to me that to limit ammo on CVs you should also do so to LBA.. I have played UV enough recently to have learned one thing... I have lost more ships to Bettys and Nells making Torpedo runs on my ships than CV aircraft by a large margain.. If CVs only carried 40+ torpedoes, how many did a normal airbase have access to ?

Xargun

[Iron Duke]

Hi,

Which ever way is decided the next question has to be at what size port can the CV's replenish bombs and torps in?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I voted 4 separate ammo types...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

It seems to me that to limit ammo on CVs you should also do so to LBA.. I have played UV enough recently to have learned one thing... I have lost more ships to Bettys and Nells making Torpedo runs on my ships than CV aircraft by a large margain.. If CVs only carried 40+ torpedoes, how many did a normal airbase have access to ?

Xargun

Often not many. Some of the early attacks by G4Ms in the SW Pacific were flown with bombs not due to range but because of a lack of torpedoes.

[Dunedain]

I think having the 4 different ordnance types is by far the best solution. It provides a very realistic modeling
of the limitations of carriers and what kind of operations they can undertake and how long they can sustain them.
Making for varied and intriguing battle situations and giving much added depth and texture to naval combat.
At the same time, the very tactical decisions about what planes will launch with what types of ordnance is a decision for the
commander of the TF onboard the ship and should be left to him.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Dunedain

I think having the 4 different ordnance types is by far the best solution. It provides a very realistic modeling
of the limitations of carriers and what kind of operations they can undertake and how long they can sustain them.
Making for varied and intriguing battle situations and giving much added depth and texture to naval combat.
At the same time, the very tactical decisions about what planes will launch with what types of ordnance is a decision for the
commander of the TF onboard the ship and should be left to him.

Don't forget that this gives your AI subcommanders a lot of leeway in what to choose. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

[Dunedain]

That's what strategic/operational command level wargames like WitP are all about.

[pad152]

Ivoted to keep it simple- one type. this game will be complicated as it is. I don't want to screw around with loadouts.

I aggree, if matrix does make any changes, then please make it a option.

[Subchaser]

WitP is grand strategy by scope, by instruments and options it’s actually grand tactical. Look what CV TF commander job is, choose targets (unfortunately) and coordinate attacks and I believe that’s all. That is a player who set TF destination, choose tactics (do not retire + react), assign altitudes for planes, monitor fuel, choose what sqns fly and what mission, decide how strong a CAP should be, how strong escort should be etc. If WitP is strictly grand strategic, all this work should be on TF commander, but it’s not. And I can’t see why in this situation I shouldn’t be able to choose, besides the everything else, type of ordnance also.

Subchaser. I was refering to how the AI chooses targets and decides how many a/c to send to each target. As it stands it generally sends full strikes when it can ( although sometimes piecemeal ).

Joel said that overkill problem will be solved, and previously it was announced that if enemy CV TF, among the other targets, is within a range of carrier aircraft, it should be the main target.

btw why do you think that this situation is unrealistic, example -

TBDs from Yorktown wasted 22 torpedoes out of 42 available in attacks on Japanese ships in Tulagi harbor on 5/4/42, there were no capital ships (!), thus leaving the carrier with only 20 torpedoes for the actual combat. On 5/7/42 Yorktown’s TBDs used 10 torpedoes on “Shoho”, and 10 torpedoes were left for big IJN carriers, the primary target, 9 of those were used in attack on 5/8/42. In hypothetical combat against Zuikaku on 5/9/42, Yorktown could launch only one TBD armed with torpedo (!). Also on 5/9 there were slightly more than 30 1000lb. bombs remaining, and aviation gas was almost exhausted, it was enough for one day of air operations only. So, as you can see, in reality, carrier exhausted its striking power in just 5 days, torpedoes were expired on the third mission, and most of them were used on ‘wrong’ targets. Why this CRUCIAL aspect of carrier combat should not be taking into account? If there will be one ammo point for everything, historical torpedo limit will be ignored.

Amount of secondary ordnance onboard was in fact pretty big, and when CV ordnance points will be calculated, it will appear that one particular carrier have onboard – 500 AP(S) bombs and/or 500 GP bombs and/or 500 (!) torpedoes. So, if you’ll transfer 4 TBF squadrons to one Essex class carrier, you’ll be forced to accept that 500 torpedoes are also loaded on this carrier. Or another situation, dive-bombers fly ASW missions (I think no ordnance should be used for ASW) or do not fly at all while torpedo bombers fly naval attack sorties and use that source of ammo points alone. Whatever you say, this is wrong. That’s way too abstractive! If you’ll assign less than 500 points to CV, you’ll severely decrease its autonomics.

Another problematic point here, which I’ve just mentioned, is transfer of ‘non native’ air units to CV, which lost her original air group or due to any other reason. If number of aircraft of a certain type was changed (in comparison with original air group) amount of appropriate ordnance should also be changed. So if CV had 50 trp-points, and instead of 1 TB unit, it has 2, it would be logic to increase amount of torpedoes. But that is too complicated. What I suggest, to avoid such problems, transfer of additional TB unit to carrier, which already has one such unit, should be restricted.

With this rule, you can freely move air units from CV to CV, from CV to base and from base to CV, but there always must be only one torpedo-bomber unit onboard. With this rule there is no need for additional onboard ordnance manipulations. Amount of ordnance on all CV types should be hardcoded and it should not be modified during the war. I guess it’s not too problematic to code. BTW this rule will also prevent unhistorical air group compositions, when player is transferring squadrons with no CV operations training to carriers.

I now think that option to choose between torpedoes and bombs should be available for all aircraft, land or carrier based, capable to carry both types of ordnance.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
With this rule, you can freely move air units from CV to CV, from CV to base and from base to CV...

I thought they said there would be a penalty for operating an air group off of a CV that didn't start the game on that CV. Something about higher Op losses or something.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Subchaser
With this rule, you can freely move air units from CV to CV, from CV to base and from base to CV...

I thought they said there would be a penalty for operating an air group off of a CV that didn't start the game on that CV. Something about higher Op losses or something.

So? I welcome this feature. It doesn’t contradict with what I’ve said

[Mr.Frag]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with whats there now simply due to the ranges involved. You'll be out of fuel in two days worth of strikes anyways, no point loosing sleep over what type of strikes they are.

Crawling for home with CV's that have no fuel is *NOT* fun. It is a long way home in WitP when you screw up and run dry. It generally costs you some if not all your ships as you can not defend yourself.

The odds of having two opposing CV groups happen to get within range of each other and both having the fuel to prosecute more then 2 days worth of strikes (4 missions) and still have enough fuel to escape with what survives is not really high. The other aspect is that after 4 missions against any target, your aircrew morale & fatigue levels are slipping into the suicidal catagory not to mention that the number of planes left has eroded to a level where you don't really have the offensive power to press onwards.

Now, if we were discussing this purely from a standpoint of allowing players to set Altitude to convert torpedo bombers into level bombers to make them live longer, I would see the point a little more clearly, but I think this topic has mixed the two together.

[Reichenberg]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with whats there now simply due to the ranges involved. You'll be out of fuel in two days worth of strikes anyways, no point loosing sleep over what type of strikes they are.

But there is the possibility to refuel your CV TF in UV at sea, making it possible for them to fly the countless sorties mentioned above.

I see that, as pointed out by you, the chances for the limited ammo to take effect would not happen too often - especially not with CV against CV. But if the devs think it is relativly easy (and necessary) to include - why leaving it out when it would enhance realism and leave the game playable - and I think it would!!

Uwe

[Von Rom]

My opinion would be to keep it simple, with an option that allows players to add a bit more control/detail: ie - have bomb/torp loadouts.

With 2 hours per turn, after one hundred turns, and with thousands of ships and aircraft to consider, even the most anal retentive wargame veteran (who often uses a magnifiying glass to study all the little weapon loadout systems for all units in TOAW), may eventually cry "uncle" and want things to be a bit more streamlined. . .[;)]

Just a thought. . .

Cheers!

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Reichenberg

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with whats there now simply due to the ranges involved. You'll be out of fuel in two days worth of strikes anyways, no point loosing sleep over what type of strikes they are.

But there is the possibility to refuel your CV TF in UV at sea, making it possible for them to fly the countless sorties mentioned above.

I see that, as pointed out by you, the chances for the limited ammo to take effect would not happen too often - especially not with CV against CV. But if the devs think it is relativly easy (and necessary) to include - why leaving it out when it would enhance realism and leave the game playable - and I think it would!!

Uwe

Yes, one can refuel task forces at sea, one can also rearm task forces at sea. Both require extreme coordination on the part of the player as far as maintaining a logistics network and really should work quite nicely for those who can pull it off.

A standard CV force is going to probably be 9+ ships. For each ship to refuel to it's maximum level in one turn, it needs a TK/AO per ship. This means the tanker force supplying fuel has to be at least the size of the Air Combat TF.

A TK/AO TF has a speed of advance of 2/2 compared to the Air Combat TF which will 5/3. Coordinating these two radically different speeds to be in the right place in the right time without having your Replenishment TF sunk by some other enemy action is certainly a challenge. The counter to this is attaching CVE's to protect the Replenishment TF. Now add in the fact the the CVE's also need to bring replacement aircraft to the CV/CVL, now add the fact that submarines will be making a bee-line for this rich collection of ships all in the same general area and you suddenly start thinking that a lot of planning needs to go into place to keep Air Combat TF's on station. It is possible, the USA did it later in the war.

Keep in mind, while refueling, since one gobbles up ops points, ships are reduced to crawl speeds. While all this sounds simple when discussing it in the forum, and wasn't that tough to pull off in UV's small scale with basically only one axis of threat (north-south), it takes new meaning in WitP scale where you are surrounded. Not against it, just do not really see that it will make any real difference to gameplay.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Keep in mind, while refueling, since one gobbles up ops points, ships are reduced to crawl speeds. While all this sounds simple when discussing it in the forum, and wasn't that tough to pull off in UV's small scale with basically only one axis of threat (north-south), it takes new meaning in WitP scale where you are surrounded. Not against it, just do not really see that it will make any real difference to gameplay.

Yep....just ask Pry.....AMBUSH!!!!!

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with whats there now simply due to the ranges involved. You'll be out of fuel in two days worth of strikes anyways, no point loosing sleep over what type of strikes they are.

I’ve mentioned the “problem with ranges” just to show another negative aspect of 1 strike point option. How hard it is to figure out how much of those abstractive points should be there. I also do not see serious problem here, it will barely happen in the game

Now, if we were discussing this purely from a standpoint of allowing players to set Altitude to convert torpedo bombers into level bombers to make them live longer, I would see the point a little more clearly,

Don’t forget that torpedo planes use hardcoded altitude for torpedo attack, and use different (assigned by player) altitude to approach the target area. There is also problem with escorts, they have to cover both BD and TB flying on different altitudes. This is not a way.

but I think this topic has mixed the two together.

It’s all about ordnance and the ways to represent it in the game. Idea of different types of ordnance gave birth to the idea of switching between them. Kind of a chain reaction.

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

My opinion would be to keep it simple, with an option that allows players to add a bit more control/detail: ie - have bomb/torp loadouts.

There is no such option - bombs/torps. Here is what we’ve got 1) One ammo type 2) 4 ammo types 3) No Ammo limit, bomb/torp loadouts is close to option #2, and as many people here insist it’s not THAT simple.

With 2 hours per turn, after one hundred turns, and with thousands of ships and aircraft to consider, even the most anal retentive wargame veteran (who often uses a magnifiying glass to study all the little weapon loadout systems for all units in TOAW), may eventually cry "uncle" and want things to be a bit more streamlined. . .[;)]

Well, 2 hours is for the first turn, as I remember U2/Dan is doing WitP turns in just 15 min. Besides that there is a possibility to let AI run some zones of control. Are you going to manage CV air groups on a daily basis? You’re going to use CV raids every week, right? How often do you think CV battles will occur? 1 per week? per month? Count all historical CV battles 1941-1945, then, if there will be more than dozen we shall talk about it.

UV released… well I already don’t remember when it was released, long time ago, and so far I didn't see anybody crying ‘uncle’… on contrary, everybody is asking for this or that little option to see this, to trigger that, to be able to… Yes WitP is incomparably greater by scope, but there are a lot more ways to automate routine.

BTW Sometimes it’s very useful to use magnifying glass, believe me…

[Subchaser]

To admin:

Can you close this poll please, 4 ammo option already won in the first tour, 52% is absolute majority. [:'(]