Matrix Games Forums

Not bitching or crying about PH, Luskan. Just about the Cavite results using level bombers. Ridiculous at best. Regarding the Betty photo example, attacking ships anchored outside of the defences is another thing entirely. That's more of a stacking limit issue. However, can't see important units like CVs, BBs, SSs etc, with facilities built expressly for their servicing and defence, being left to anchor outside of said facilities.

Putting all this detail effort into a historical sim then allowing this kind of stuff defeats the effort. And for those on the forum saying that they want a game, to hell with realism, then they should dust off their Koei consoles. They came to the wrong place according to the website adverts. It's akin to scratchbuilding a scale replica of the Constitution and letting one's kid play with it in the bathtub.[8|]

Hi, Ron quit kibitzing this game and play your own. I don't make port attacks on turn 1 (except for PH)

Luskan - I'd be happy to see the combat report for Turn 2.... [:D]

Hi, Ron quit kibitzing this game and play your own. I don't make port attacks on turn 1 (except for PH)

Mog, quit whining at them and get turn 4 to me [:D]

Hate to be the voice of reason, but as much as I enjoy this, I enjoy reading the AAR more! Can we limit comments to that aspect in this thread please? I'd be more than happy to start up another thread so we can rehash the torp bomber debate...

Sorry to be the grump, I just want to read about this game since I can't play it yet!

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Pretty sad when a person with 6 PBEM games of WITP is sitting waiting for just one turn to come back. (after 6 hours)

I have the "luxury" of being able to surf while at work, please don't take my being online as me being at home.

and you have my turn

TF 17 troops unloading over beach at Khota Bharu, 24,45

Coastal Guns at Khota Bharu, 24,45, firing at TF 17
TF 17 troops unloading over beach at Khota Bharu, 24,45


4097 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Kamo
DD Kiji
DD Kari
DD Kasasagi

Japanese ground losses:
1171 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported

Hmmm - here too, 1000's of "coastal gun shots" fired.

The Singapore numbers - 54 or whatever - sounded reasonable. But unless the program is reporting on soldier's arms fire too, the numbers don't make a lot of sense. [&:]

Dave Baranyi

Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.

Under this theory the Japanese should be allowed to "torpedo" airfields. A torpedo
IS a killer weapon, but it does have certain inate limitations. There are situations
in which it's use simply isn't practical. To say those limitations should be ignored
so the Japanese can get better attack results is just complete "fanboyism".

ORIGINAL: pad152

Let's face it, the Torpedeo is one of the few Japanese killer weapons, if you limit there use, the war will be over in 1943.

Just because the Japanese are going to lose should not mean they are more effective and get to kill more allied ships just for kicks, if they had the ability to do it let them if they didn't don't let them. If you want a fair game go play tick tack toe

Lots of AA type guns there with high rates of fires. Notice it says shots, not guns. It is actually a very nice addition, lets you know whether to pack your bags and pull a "Sir Robin" when you see the first part of the landing.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Lots of AA type guns there with high rates of fires. Notice it says shots, not guns. It is actually a very nice addition, lets you know whether to pack your bags and pull a "Sir Robin" when you see the first part of the landing.

Oh, so the AA guns fire at enemy troops too? Do they do that in UV also? If that's correct it is very good to know. (I've never noticed that in UV.)

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

Oh, so the AA guns fire at enemy troops too? Do they do that in UV also? If that's correct it is very good to know. (I've never noticed that in UV.)

The landings in UV have been completely reworked. It is just one of the many things that has been enhanced in WitP. When comparing UV to WitP, you really need to think in terms of a baby growing up. There are just so many things that have been enhanced that it becomes hard to keep track of them all. People coming from UV are going to have some VERY BAD habits to unlearn. I'm just waiting to see someone start the old forward defence thread that used to be such fun to argue in UV's forum. [;)]

Ahhhh........another Christian for the lions !

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm in a pbem in UV with me as the japs where my opponent has pulled off the first month "charge!" forward defence idea. Kanga force has taken every base except Lae, and he hold Buka with several squadrons and several inf units.

Took me by surprise (yes I was being lazy and his not rolling over and just giving me northern PNG caught me off guard badly - lost lots of ships).

I awnt to see my turn two as well, but while I have the afternoon off, Raver won't be doing the turn until tonight. Especially since it is his first and most important chance to settle in, and give orders to EVERYTHING. Will be a long turn. After that things speed right up.

Of course, it is a long weekend here so with the exception of a few anzac day committments (at dawn no less), a radiohead gig and some duties for she who must be obeyed, well, I'll be piling on the turns. Doomed - you got my turn as well?

People seem to forget the fact that the Doolitle raid was a one-way trip.......hoping to make China.....I wouldn't use the tactic myself......Doolittle never fooled himself thinkin' he was gonna land that big ol' bomber on that postage stamp sized flightdeck.....therefore, to insert it as a usual thing in WitP would be a unnecessary tidbit IMHO.

Joel, my opinion is that a setup that would have only some of the attacking a/c carry torpedoes would be the best compromise. If you think of ships tied up at finger piers, only those on the outermost piers would really be susceptible to torpedoes. Torpedoes need a straight run at their target for some distance (what... 50 yards? 100 yards? 400 yards?) and many port layouts will prevent this.

I am willing to accept the limitation that we have to allow torpedoes in all or none of the ports. If we can't limit the percentage of ships that can be targetted by torpedoes, then limiting the percentage of a/c that carry them (if possible) seems to be the best choice.

The torpedo itself needs several hundred yards of "run" to stabilize in depth, and
the plane delivering it needs even more of a run in to line up on the target and
achieve a stable drop altitude. One of the reasons that the torpedo planes at PH
concentrated on "Battleship Row" was the loch on that side of Ford Island allowed
more "run-in" room than the rest of the rather narrow and convoluted area of the
Naval Base. Singapore Naval Base is basically an East_West Channel. Unless for
some bizarre reason the Brits decided to moor a ship cross-wise in the channel
there just isn't room for a torpedo bomber to make a run.

deleted.