This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
Well, no... Strictly speaking, the only US torp you can sort of expect to work is the Mk 10. Here are the initial dud rates:
Mk 8 - 20%
Mk 10 - 15%
Mk 13 - 50%
Mk 14 - 80%
Mk 15 - 60%
Mk 18 - 60%
There is a lot of "baloney" included in the "dud rates" the game provides. Here are some hard numbers:
Totals..Ships.....Tonnage......# Days on Patrol
1941.......6.......31,693.......281
1942.......133.5...552,472......4,886
1943.......308.....1,366,962....6,682
1944.......548.5...2,451,913....11,700
1945.......154.5...447,584......7,741
Grand Total
....... 1150.5......4,850,624.....31,290
During the first 13 months of the war, US subs sank 113 tons of Japanese shipping per day of patrol. In 1943, the figure rose to 204.5 tons per day..., and in 1944 it was 209.5 tons per day of patrol.
This suggests that the real problem period for US torpedoes was the first 13 months, and after that the main factor was the number of boats on patrol. There is very little change between 1943 and 1944 except in patrol days. By 1945, lack of targets skews the numbers.
In the game, the dud rates are too high, and they last too long.
Do you have any estimate on number of torps fired per target in the various years? I am curious if the commanders were just firing extra torps in the early years to make up for the lack of reliability. Considering the lack of escorts, a US sub would have probably have the time available to "finish off" a target if only 1 out of 4 fish in the first salvo exploded and only lamed the target.
Also, I suspect the WitP dud rates might be based on the factory-new condition torpedos, and don't take into account the the field-mods, revised tactics, and other expediencies that might have been implemented for higher reliability in the field while BuOrd tried to get its act together.
Mike A
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.
Many Sub commanders early in the war removed the magnetic influence detonator and adjusted the torpedoes to run more shallow on their own and against orders.
So they fixed 2 out of 3 of the mk 14 defects before it was official to do so.
Well, "early in the war" probably relates to mid-late 1942, though. When Lockwood was commanding the Pacific subs, he wrote up every sub commander who fired multi-torpedo salvos at ships, since he was absolutely convinced that the magnetic exploders would work and only one or two torpedoes, maximum, would be needed to sink any ship. He wrote memos and threatened to beach any sub commander who used 3 or more torpedoes to sink a ship.
This kind of refusal to admit something was wrong with the torpedoes continued until one commander, I think it was Mush Morton, set up a camera on the periscope and had witnesses log the firing of his torpedoes at a docked ship in an unprotected harbor. He sneaked in to around 800 yards out and fired the torpedoes one at a time, kept a running log of each one and whether it hit, missed or was a partial detonation.
When Morton returned to Pearl and presented his evidence that something was badly wrong with the torpedoes, Lockwood couldn't ignore this like he had from previous commanders (Morton was already a famous sub captain) and gave permission for captains to turn the magnetic detonators off. That helped but just exposed the other problems (bad depth control and weak contact exploders).
This suggests that the real problem period for US torpedoes was the first 13 months, and after that the main factor was the number of boats on patrol. There is very little change between 1943 and 1944 except in patrol days. By 1945, lack of targets skews the numbers.
This makes sense. We know historically that after a certain point in time the problems were known in sufficient detail that the sub commanders were able to operate in such a way (oblique shots, disable magnetic exploders, etc.) to minimize the dud rate although certainly were unable to eliminate it.
In the game, the dud rates are too high, and they last too long.
I haven't looked at it in the editor in AE, but I thought the USN torp dud rate varied over time in the game already (to reflect the operational steps taken)? I know it did in WITP.
Do you have any estimate on number of torps fired per target in the various years? I am curious if the commanders were just firing extra torps in the early years to make up for the lack of reliability. Not right off hand, but I'm sure it's available. I got those figures in a two minute check of internet sights.
Also, I suspect the WitP dud rates might be based on the factory-new condition torpedos, and don't take into account the the field-mods, revised tactics, and other expediencies that might have been implemented for higher reliability in the field while BuOrd tried to get its act together. Not an unreasonable assumption. Just look at all the "field modifications" made to the Sherman Tank when it's shortcomings became obvious to the crews.
Mike, what changes to the dud rate do you suggest should be made to make the mk 14 more realistic?
Not sure without some testing. Of the top of my head 80% is probably fine for the first 5 months, then 70% for the next 4, and 60% for the rest of 1942, and 50% for the first 4 months of 1943 (reflecting "field modifications"). After that it should drop to maybe 15% for the rest of the war.
Sounds great Mike, but will they put it in the next patch for us?
Only if a LOT of people complain about the current situation. There is a great deal of truth in the old saw "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease". So "squeak" loudly, and encourage others to do likewise.
Sounds great Mike, but will they put it in the next patch for us?
Only if a LOT of people complain about the current situation. There is a great deal of truth in the old saw "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease". So "squeak" loudly, and encourage others to do likewise.
You mean I've been wrong all this time. I thought it was "The nail that stands up gets pounded!"
Sounds great Mike, but will they put it in the next patch for us?
Only if a LOT of people complain about the current situation. There is a great deal of truth in the old saw "It's the squeaking wheel that gets the grease". So "squeak" loudly, and encourage others to do likewise.
You mean I've been wrong all this time. I thought it was "The nail that stands up gets pounded!"
Only by "Termi". [:D] My theory is that if he can't intimidate you, then you must be sincere and worth listening too. [8|]
You know, I'm actually not that distressed by the current in-game torpedo dud rates. I think it can be worked around.
I've racked up >430 IJN ships sunk to date (March 17, 1942) with reliable USN torpedoes OFF (IJ AI-Hard). The majority of the IJN TFs that are attacked by SS ARE escorted too. About half of these sinkings, I would say, are SS-related, the balance being air or SCTF intercepts.
How to get around the faulty USN torpedoes? Shoot lots of 'em. Return to base, refill, shoot lots more. Rinse, lather, repeat. Use this to your advantage by sprayin' and prayin'.
In a typical USN sub attack with Mk. 14s, 4-6 torpedoes are fired. If the dud rate is 80%, that will mean that of four fired torpedoes (that hit), there is an 80% chance that one of them will function properly. If fewer than four of four hit, this percentage slips proportionally. I would estimate that my % chance of success per ATTACK (not per torpedo fired) is between 25-30% with Mk. 14s. I anxiously await the improvement of this number, but it's better than not trying.
I think the game allows the allied player (with AS support) *much* greater early war access to numbers of torpedoes than IRL. IRL, in the early war, USN subs were going on patrol with partial torpedo load-outs or 'hot-swapping' torpedoes from other SS coming into port for repairs or what not. The major torpedo installation / storage units in Manila were abandoned (intact [:@], IIRC), thus leaving a major supply gap in the early war months. There is no such gap in WiTP-AE.
Similarly, Dutch or English AS could not IRL provide the necessary production components (particularly in the early war) for USN Mk. 10s or Mk. 14s. The ability of the allied player to use any nation's AS to serve ANY SS torpedo type is a huge advantage.
I think maybe allied players have their primary submarine bases or operation too far away from the action. The submarines spend more of their time in transit than they do shooting at enemy TFs with their admitedly crappy early war torpedoes. My advice: 1. Get in close to the action. 2. Shoot lots. 3. Return to base when torpedoes are <1/2 load-you might bump into something on the way back. 4. Have an AS or two close to the action. 5. Increase the aggression of your sub commanders. 6. Target the right areas-bottlenecks, small ports, high-traffic areas, 'retreat' paths from SCTF battle, oil and resource-laden convoy paths, etc. etc.
Volume of shots on target, not the target itself will be the deciding factor for your SS campaign success.
How to get around the faulty USN torpedoes? Shoot lots of 'em. Return to base, refill, shoot lots more. Rinse, lather, repeat. Use this to your advantage by sprayin' and prayin'.
In a typical USN sub attack with Mk. 14s, 4-6 torpedoes are fired. If the dud rate is 80%, that will mean that of four fired torpedoes (that hit), there is an 80% chance that one of them will function properly. If fewer than four of four hit, this percentage slips proportionally. I would estimate that my % chance of success per ATTACK (not per torpedo fired) is between 25-30% with Mk. 14s. I anxiously await the improvement of this number, but it's better than not trying.
I agree that you just have to try to get as many shots off as possible so that you at can get some kills with the Mk. 14's, but your math is a bit off here. With a 80% dud rate, you have only a 59% chance off at least one torpedo functioning in a 4 shot spread, instead of 80%. (1-0.8^4)
How to get around the faulty USN torpedoes? Shoot lots of 'em. Return to base, refill, shoot lots more. Rinse, lather, repeat. Use this to your advantage by sprayin' and prayin'.
In a typical USN sub attack with Mk. 14s, 4-6 torpedoes are fired. If the dud rate is 80%, that will mean that of four fired torpedoes (that hit), there is an 80% chance that one of them will function properly. If fewer than four of four hit, this percentage slips proportionally. I would estimate that my % chance of success per ATTACK (not per torpedo fired) is between 25-30% with Mk. 14s. I anxiously await the improvement of this number, but it's better than not trying.
I agree that you just have to try to get as many shots off as possible so that you at can get some kills with the Mk. 14's, but your math is a bit off here. With a 80% dud rate, you have only a 59% chance off at least one torpedo functioning in a 4 shot spread, instead of 80%. (1-0.8^4)
Hmmm...
If you do the math on your proposed formula, 1-0.8^4, I get .0016. I believe that this calculation (.16%) represents the likelihood of ALL FOUR torpedoes operating successfully (read: divine intervention). I think that my brain would explode like something out of the movie "Scanners" if this happened.
I think my .20 (20%) figure for ANY ONE OF FOUR torpedoes working during an attack is correct, but I'd welcome additional comments on the math. I'm considering the operation of any one torpedo as an 'independent event' and using factorial models for probability-is this correct?
It's 1-0.8^4, not (1-0.8)^4 the latter would indeed be the chance that all 4 torpedoes explode. 0.8^4 is the chance that no torpedoes explode, so 1-0.8^4 should be the chance of 1,2,3 or 4 torpedoes explode.
It's 1-0.8^4, not (1-0.8)^4 the latter would indeed be the chance that all 4 torpedoes explode. 0.8^4 is the chance that no torpedoes explode, so 1-0.8^4 should be the chance of 1,2,3 or 4 torpedoes explode.
Got it. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
You are forgetting Murphy's Maxim on USN Torpedo Success which states that "The chance of a USN Torpedo detonating is inversely proportional to the value of the target." Thus, you will need to factor in the value of the target into your equations. [:D]
