Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Caltone

I am getting so tired of hearing "it's the way players use them that's the problem"

Maybe, but please don't ignore the fact that this happens. Your answer dodges the problem Players currently can:

1. Station PT's anywhere on the map (100's of miles from shore and still move them 1 hex at a time)
2. Amass HUGE squadrons of them.
3. Form surface combat TF's and hunt other surface combat TF's several hexes away from shore.

None of the above should happen, additionally the torpedo accuracy and lack of duds may be an issue.

Instead of saying players can do this forcing yet another house rule, shouldn't this at least be looked at? If it can't be fixed, fine, we'll deal with house rules, but lets hear from the team.

Hi, PT boats out of fuel move 2 hexes per turn (1 per movement phase) and if they encounter enemy surface TF they are sitting ducks.

The rest is PLAYER CONTROLED ACTIONS. The AI does not use them in this manner. If you don't like the way you PBEM opponent plays thats a different matter. Some people actually want to know what would have happended if a weapon system was employed in another way. I see no reason to use more then 6 per TF but that is just me. I think if one of my IJN opponents left a TF for 3 days 120 miles from my PT's I would have sent them out. (I would not have expected many to return) Under normal conditions a PT is a poor target for air attack. The method for attacking them in WITP via air is exactly the same as UV. Your not going to score many bomb hits on a PT boat running at full speed.
If your enemy does what you consider "gamey" tactics use them back. If he puts 20 PT boats in TF send a TF of 20 DD after them .

Well as long as we are complaining about PT boat tactics, lets complain about ahistorical Japanese tactics.

The IJA and IJN hated each other with a passion. The Navy wanted more landings, the army didnt go along. Yet in PBEM you have the Japanese player attacking out of air range support and in waters that would be dangerous to the Ships. The army wouldnt have gone along with these plans, yet that isnt modeled in the game.

If you want to remake PT boats so they cant be used a historically then add a level of PP for the use of Japanese Army units.

two potential issues with PT's (in my opinion) based on my play experience.

1.) too accurate. PT's had no FC and, at least in the USN case, the tubes were cited in such a way that you could pretty much just launch 1 torp at a time. To launch the other tube you had to veer around and set up your shot again (usually while avoiding counterbattery fire) Further, while it was sometimes possible for PT's to sneak or ambush
enemy ships, more often than not they'd have to fight their way in and launch their fish, all the while dodging and weaving to avoid enemy fire and ships. All in all, PT's were not very successful at this. They achieved a couple successes but their primary contribution was in keeping the enemy honest and on their toes. Even as late as 1944, mass nighttime PT attacks were largely ineffective. (Surgeo Strait for example)

2.) Surface combat model seems to treat them as major warships so i've noted the tendancy for the PT's to be able to make attacks on enemy major warships (cruisers, battleships, CV's) even if said TF's have very heavy screens of escorts. More realistically, PT's should usually skirmish with the escorts if they are present in large enough #'s. There should be a "chance" for a PT to slip through into the middle of a TF and attack a prime target, but these should be the exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. Day or night

#2, may be responsible at least in part for #1. It may be that PT's aren't so "accurate" as much as they just get too many shots at the big ships too often, when instead they should, assuming the player took the precaution of properly escorting his major assets) be mixing it up more with the fringe elements of the TF in question, i.e. the DD's.

I had a notable experience with the above. A test game with Kid. He managed to do a mid ocean intercept and in broad daylight torpedoed 1 or IIRC even two of CV's with his PT's. That was bizarre to say the least [X(]

It also seems fairly easy to mass produce PT as well.

Now you got me wanna watchs Mchale's Navy[:D]

Historically, I think the BB Fuso (At Suragio Straight) was the only ship larger than a DD which was ever hit by PT boats. However, the Fuso also came under destroyer torpedo attack, and exploded after being torpedoed. There were very few survivors left, so it is hard to say exactly which ship(s) launched the fatal torpedos.

Fuso was hit by a spread of torpedoes launched by DD's.

The PT attacks went in first but were unsuccessful and were brushed aside.

The combat was very one sided. It was allied surprise, allies fire on surprised japanese ships, then teh combat was over. No japanese ships fired a single round. The weather was rain. It is hardly unthinkable that in a situation with pouring rain, poor visibility and heavy seas, a surface taskforce too close to shore is surprised by 5 small PTs that come storming at 40knots. The PTs come from land so they are hard to spot against the shoreline and they are really small and the japanese ships are huge as houses silouetted against the open sea.

Heavy seas? Sure, that combat results looks fine. Nope, that makes it even more crazy, small boats bouncing up and down trying to make 40 knots and fire at cruisers and destroyers. I agree that in certain conditions close to land PT's should be able to ambuse a real fleet. But this one looks suspect and the conditions that brought it about even more so, aircraft ignoring them and allowing them to get so close. I won't be playing PBEM till fixed, the rest of you enjoy yourselves. I just want to know how many PT boats I can get from the steel of a Yamato class BB as they are obviously the superior weapon system? This same falacy is like saying the hundreds of attack boats the USSR had were as effective as the USA's blue water navy.

I think the lesson here is to not venture too close to shore with valuable capital ships.

The lesson is to not play WITP till fixed.

You can always use a house rule too. No PT movement beyond the base assigned to (Transit excepted) and limit the # of PT TF's per base.

Myself, i dont use PT's all that much.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

You can always use a house rule too. No PT movement beyond the base assigned to (Transit excepted) and limit the # of PT TF's per base.

Myself, i dont use PT's all that much.

Exactly. House rules work fine in this case.

If you want to remake PT boats so they cant be used a historically then add a level of PP for the use of Japanese Army units.

What is historical about the combat results in question? I'll go along with that idea when there are no 2nd Marine Division deploying to SoPac in '41, etc. It is not just the game that is fubar, many players think they're in a John Wayne movie instead of WW2.

Yes house rules are ok for those who use them, problem solved. The list of house rules grows longer each hour, it's turning into a D&D gaming convention.

ORIGINAL: brisd

Yes house rules are ok for those who use them, problem solved. The list of house rules grows longer each hour, it's turning into a D&D gaming convention.

Takes a long time to break in this puppy.

Absolutely, 120 miles is not "too close to shore" And thankfully someone else picked up on the bad weather and high seas.

Also Mogami, those PT's out in the shipping lanes can get refueled by another TF. Yes, I monitor my PBEM games and my current opponents are great. But I have had a game where 2 months in, I discover stuff like this that ruins the whole experience for me.

I don't like making 'house rules' and I abhor gamey tactics and crazy results. Don't force me to do these things because something modelled in the game needs a look.

PT's should not trash a battle fleet, especially in bad weather

PT's are too accurate in their attacks on warships (seem fine on transports and barges)

PT's should not be at sea 100's of miles from a base

It should be impossible to form PT TF's in massive numbers of ships.

If it can't be changed, no problem, just have the team let us know. I know I can use house rules to work around this and I will if I have to, just wanting to know if this is on the list or not.

Weather was not too bad in the area at the time. Just hate the idea of PT boats being ignored unless YOU set the altitude at 100' and run the risk of them taking out after a heavy AA TF. Of course there is the fact that they were able to cruise in amongst my TF, penetrating my escort screen without being spotted to get within torp range of my CV's unhindered.


I tossed it up to the wish list earlier.

It is a complex game and still requires alot of tweaking and I'm sure no one will be totally pleased with final outcome, compromise is the watchword.[;)]

one is never going to get completely away from house rules. The more complex the game, and most importantly, the more freedom and control the players are given, the easier and more likely it will be that players can use assets in ways that the developers might not have been able to anticipate or that other players may consider ahistorical or "gamey". (and admitedly, not all agree on what constitutes what)

Its particularily hard in a game this size...hard just to test items much less sit back and say, "well what if i do 'this' with it?"

That it is brisd. It is by far the greatest wargame ever produced and I will play this thing till my death (which my be sooner than I think according to my wife who says I spend too much time conquering the SRA) [:D]

As always, spirited debate brings out the best. We see all sides, get lots of opinions, and in the end we are united behind our game.

It shouldnt be possible for the Japanese player to attack out of air support and across the breadth of DEI on turn one either.

My experience with PT boats is they are nearly useless against major combatants.

I have noticed most complaints are centered around making life easier for the Japanese player.

Who invaded Guadalcanal in August 1942? Are you saying the 2nd Marine Division didnt exsist in December 1941? How about the 40th Division it comes in early too, shall we get rid of it too?

The fact is if the Allied player deploys his assets to soon he is likely to lose them. It seems again to me most of these complaints center around letting the Japanese secure bases that they never did historicly, for example Noumea and Canton.

If the Japanese Player can use his forces ahistoricly then so can the Allied player.

The only honest complaint I see here is that the Japanese should be able to intercept the PT boats with Air, that makes sense, change the mechanics so that the aircraft will attack PT boats.

I also have no problem with setting a cap on fleet size. 6 or 8 seems reasonable.

My personal experience is that PT boats arent very accurate and arent very effective against larger combatants. But the potential is there. As it should be.

What about the very real fact that the Japanese services did NOT get along, the army did not like cooperating with the Navy, that isnt shown in the game at all. No way the Army High Command would agree to send troops to some of the ports that get hit on turn one by an agrressive Japanese player. Whats good for the Japanese is Good for the allied player, Japanese players want freedom to do as they please then so should allied players.

I did some test a while back with pt-boats (thread in support forum). They are definitely not the über-boats some posters here seem to think. Also the allies don't get more than 1 or 2 a month, so if an allied player uses them aggressively they will soon be gone.