I just need to say this.........

[sdhundt]

I know this has been stated in the past and players from both sides have weighed into this topic. The American torpedoe failure rate was about %70 according to the several different detailed reports that I have seen. The game though has the failure rate at almost %100. Um, this really needs to be fixed. By not fixing it the Japs. can go anywhere and sit with KB with no fears of anything. Lets make this a better game. I know you cold just turn off the realistic torpedo failure rate but that doesn't address the problem, Thanks for reading this.

[HexHead]

Oh, turning off the torp fails addresses it, alright.

Let the JFB know, though.

[Rob Brennan UK]

SDhundt. USN dive-bombers with 1000lb bombs ruin Jap Cv's , Admittedly the torpedo bombers are not very effective due to the horrible torpedoes used by the USN in the early and mid war periods. By stating that KB is invulnerable to damage suggests you haven't really tried hard enough as allies or just been plain lucky as Japan [;)].

The torp failure rate has been discussed to death here since witP launched and 90% failure is pretty much accepted by most players, some ofc are entitled to hold different views and that's what the torp off button is for in the game menu. I would imagine the device can be edited to whatever you like too.

Regardless I hope you enjoy the game, and this forum is a great learning tool as well as a nice place to drop by.

good luck

[Smeulders]

The game has a dud rate of 80% in January 43' it becomes 60% and in September 43' it becomes 10%. I'm interested to hear where you get the 'nearly 100%' from.

[sdhundt]

Well I can only speak for my pbem game, I'm still in late 1942 but it's now been twentyone times in a row that my sub. torps. have failed to detinate when hitting a Jap. carrier in big BK or little KB. Twenty one times in a row, now that's a little redicoulas. And as for the statement that "I haven't really tried hard enough", I could direct you to roy2008 AAR in the German forum or you could just ask him and I think he could tell you how HARD I have tried. I'm just saying it's a little hard to fight KB when he knows the torps. never go BOOOOM [:-]

[DeriKuk]

There are many things that need to be fixed. Many of the problems probably came about through "well-intentioned" efforts to design-for effect.

Apart from the torps:

- The devastating AWS capabilities of IJA bombers.
- C47s falling from the skies like confetti, while Dakota IIIs flying the same mission from the same base at the same time have much more realistic loss rate.
- Those nuclear depth charges used by IJN 'E'-class patrol boats.
- Night-time bombers being too effective on non-"City" missions.
- Night Fighters being practically useless.
- The [supply-cost]-[effect-benefit] of artillery being prohibitively useless.

Yes, there is much that is wrong. Will it be fixed before I have to abandon the game for the rest of my life? Probably not . . .

How close is the latest BETA to being the definitive release?

[topeverest]

Keep in mind the non-american subs do not carry the same 42 dud burden.

You will get hits. I regularly sink one to three dozen merchants per month in 42 with subs. The primary reason empire combat ships dont really suffer from american subs in 42 is a combination of the difficulty to hit a ship with higher speed and maneuverability along with the dud rate. Look at it from a math perspective, say 4 torps fired at target. A ship moving 10 might take 4 hits and one explosion. A combat ship doing 30+ knots might take one hit and it be a dud. Thats just math.

I do believe the dud rate effectively portrays the american difficulty in 42. Later in the war, you will be utterly amazed how effective the allied sub machine is.

Let me suggest your subs are best use in merchant roles in 42, since, as I described above, there is little they can effectively do against combat ships.

[topeverest]

HJ,

A few thoughts on your comments
1. remember that pilot skill and experience is the single most important factor in mission effectiveness. If you are getting pummeled by ASW, then your opponnet / computer has highly skilled pilots and is using effective naval search routines
2. with regard to depth charging, this is going to happen, especially where the enemy has effectively used combined arms (air spotting, Air asw, and ship asw). either side can effectively shut down particular zones by focusing trained assets. I believe this is what you are experiencing.
3. I do not agree that night fighters are useless. radar equipped certainly are better than non...
4. c47 vs dakota 3. Operational losses are a function of airframe fatigue, pilot experience, and mission distance. Those two plane types are pretty similar and their ops losses are similar IME.
5. IMHO, artillery is mainly useful as a disrupting device against enemy ground forces. It does not win or lose battles in and of itself.

I hope this helps.

[sdhundt]

Update....Just ran my latest turn.....guess what ?.........It's now twenty-two turns and counting.......CV Hiyo just laughed at the four torpedoes that missed the big fat carrier. Well at least they missed and I can't complain about them being duds. This has to be an AE record for failed sub. vs CV attacks. If anyone cares I'm going to keep a running total on here to see how many times in a row my subs can fail against a jap. CV. You would think by accident the subs. should eventually hit a CV[&:]

[DeriKuk]

I hope this helps

Actually, it doesn't. I'm into a grand campaign in June '44, and have played it against an excellent opponent for almost a year now, so I have a very thick layer of empirical evidence . . . and I'm committed to keep on playing.

Pilot experience of Wellington GRs and Liberator GRs and Catalinas and Venturas is through the roof. They have high skills (70+) in low naval bombing and ASW . . . yet they - and their IJN counterparts - are chumps when compared to the actual game performance of the IJA bomber pilots on ASW missions. Please note the emphases.

I have seen the numbers. I'm a grognard wargamer (and game designer) with 33+ years of experience on wargaming. I know design-for-effect when I see it. It's a cheap trick, and it will create a multitude of errors in a complex game for every "error" it tries to "fix".

[HexHead]

It is almost impossible to model a sub attack in an operational level game.

* What was the range for the attack?

* Did the skipper or periscope operator use the stadimeter correctly? How about the speed estimate? No one ever misestimates a target's speed? How about angle on the bow (AOB)? Gee, that's always down to the exact degree, right?

* Spray on the scope, night attacks being nearly impossible when submerged ("...the scope at night was effectively useless..." [paraphrase], George Grider, War Fish), little things like escorts with a bone in their teeth approaching while you're taking one last setup observation.

I hate to say it, but if one wants a realistic model, play Silent Hunter - even the original is better than an operational level program.

There was a skipper who had a fat juicy liner, 30,000 tons in the crosshairs. He got it to slow by a hit on the props, or something - it was literally a sitting duck.

Sixteen fish later, not a freakin'scratch - from point blank range, virtually a sitting target with a firing solution even an ensign could set up. The boat took one fish with them back to the barn for analysis. It took stuff like that to get Bureau of Ordnance to say, "Hmmm."

Do not look for realistic sub ops in operational games, that's my opinion. It could be done, but it would be an entire subprogram and probably not cost effective from cost/benefit perspective, it could cost too much in time and money to implement a credible routine for half a dozen different navies, different boats, different doctrines.

Just one man's take on things.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

I know this has been stated in the past and players from both sides have weighed into this topic. The American torpedoe failure rate was about %70 according to the several different detailed reports that I have seen. The game though has the failure rate at almost %100. Um, this really needs to be fixed. By not fixing it the Japs. can go anywhere and sit with KB with no fears of anything. Lets make this a better game. I know you cold just turn off the realistic torpedo failure rate but that doesn't address the problem, Thanks for reading this.

No, and you can actually look up the dud rate in the editor. The torpedoes all vary, and you or I might think they got this one or that one a little bit wrong but the data is there for you to see. IIRC the Mk14 used by many USN subs is given a failure rate of 80%. A torpedo (I forget the name) used by many USN destroyers is given a failure rate of 60%. They are all there to be seen.

They also change over time. From the manual:

6.4.2.1 NOTE ON TORPEDO DUDS
In January 1943, all torpedoes with a dud rate of greater than 49 have their dud rates reduced by 20. In September 1943, all torpedoes with an adjusted dud rate greater than 20 have their dud rates lowered to 10. Allied torpedoes were notoriously inefficient in the early stages of the Pacific War, and this rule reflects their slow but steady improvement over the years.

Note: if the Realism option “Reliable USN Torpedoes” (see section 2.4.7) is selected, this rule does not apply – no torpedoes will have dud rates higher than 10%.

[USS Henrico]

ORIGINAL: sdhundt

Update....Just ran my latest turn.....guess what ?.........It's now twenty-two turns and counting.......CV Hiyo just laughed at the four torpedoes that missed the big fat carrier. Well at least they missed and I can't complain about them being duds. This has to be an AE record for failed sub. vs CV attacks. If anyone cares I'm going to keep a running total on here to see how many times in a row my subs can fail against a jap. CV. You would think by accident the subs. should eventually hit a CV[&:]

In Jan 43 it gets better. The difference between 80% and 60% firing a spread of torpedoes makes a serious difference.

I had an experience of three weeks with a torpedo dud attack every day in Nov-Dec 42 of my PBEM game. Once the calendar rolled over to the new year, the explosions started happening. Not every time, but enough to put the USN submarine arm in the war.

[Big B]

Actually, if you open your editor and look up the types of torpedo assigned to the different platforms, you will find that initial dud rates vary by torpedo type.

USN submarines use the 21" Mark 14 (dud rate 80%)
USN surface ships (DDs) use the 21" Mark 15 (dud rate 60%)
USN TBD's and TBF's use the 22.4" Mark 13 (dud rate 50%).

And as stated above, the rates improve as the date progresses.

B

EDIT: A good place to find the historical information is here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.htm

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Actually, if you open your editor and look up the types of torpedo assigned to the different platforms, you will find that initial dud rates vary by torpedo type.

USN submarines use the 21" Mark 14 (dud rate 80%)

Only the fleet boats. The S-class uses the Mk10, which works well.

As for the contention made by the OP and his 22-shot donut, well, Mr. Bernoulli was a real SOB.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

There was a skipper who had a fat juicy liner, 30,000 tons in the crosshairs. He got it to slow by a hit on the props, or something - it was literally a sitting duck.

Sixteen fish later, not a freakin'scratch - from point blank range, virtually a sitting target with a firing solution even an ensign could set up. The boat took one fish with them back to the barn for analysis. It took stuff like that to get Bureau of Ordnance to say, "Hmmm."

The game shouldn't use one example from the real war to make coding decisions in the game. This example happened once. And, it's a great example.

The torpedo firing pin was weak. 90 degree hits had a much higher chance of failure, compared to shorter angles. This ship was a sitting duck. The skipper lined up so an ensign could make the shot (90 degrees). unfortunately, that was the worst setup for the bad torpedoes.

If the ship was maneuvering, she would have been sunk with less than 16 torpedos. A couple would have hit at angles and the firing pin would have been less likely to shatter. The majority of the 16 fish actually hit the target. a few did run deep or angled away.

I would argue, as the OP has, that 80% is too high a dud rate. I think it should be around 70% (but, this number is pulled out of my @ss). I would also argue that the capabilities of the US S class are too effective. Historically, they (combined) sank 1 ship per month they were in action. And, quite a few of them were lost operationally.

The US fleet boats are a little less effective in 42 than they were, historically. But, most players make up for some of the deficiency by getting much better use from their S class and the Dutch boats. I guess you end up getting to the same place, but it would be nice to have it perfect.

[topeverest]

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!

I never liked fluid dynamics...or number theory or was it...and I am stretching...Reman function?

[sprior]

Bernoulli is eay P1Q1=P2Q2

[HexHead]

And when the engine quits, you enjoy the acceleration due to gravity.

[HexHead]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Quoting Bernoulli now. This is serious!

I never liked fluid dynamics...or number theory or was it...and I am stretching...Reman function?

"Riemann," I believe.

Remember, there is one, and only one line, parallel to given line that may be drawn through a point not on the given line - but only if you say so.