Matrix Games Forums

I think it is very stupid that destroyers CAN reload torps from a AD, but cruisers (having the SAME torpedo's) can not.
You can leterally reload EVERYTHING from a supply ship (ammo from AE, sub torps from AS, mines from a MLE, motor torpedo boat torps from (forgot), destroyer torps from a AD)
but you can ONLY reload cruiser/BB torps from a level 9 port ????????.
matrix games or modders should shange this !!.

Is that true? I thought the purpose of the AD in the game was to reload torpedoes for surface ships. The only reason it is called AD is that we use US terms and the US had taken the torpedoes off of all of their CA's. If it is true that only DD can reload from AD I would say that is a mistake.

HEY TO MAKE SURE IT IS FIXED RIGHT, WHY DONT YOU POST IT IN THE WITP WISH LIST OR USE ONE OF THE FORUMS SO THAT THE DESIGHNERS SEE THIS AND RESPOND.

just posted it under requests....

Request that warships larger than DDs should have a port size restriction for rearming gun ammo as other ships do for torps and mines while you are at it.[:D]

AD = DESTROYER TENDER, not cruiser tender.

IIRC, there had never been any operational instance of Cruisers receiveing torps from a tender. Tenders would have a DesDiv or DesRon assigned to it, and draw torps to it. Not only would cruisers reloading torps from ADs be completely ahistorical and inaccurate, its partly, well, stupid.

I agree with tanker here, it would simply be ahistoric and would add an unrealistic feature to the game.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

AD = DESTROYER TENDER, not cruiser tender.

IIRC, there had never been any operational instance of Cruisers receiveing torps from a tender. Tenders would have a DesDiv or DesRon assigned to it, and draw torps to it. Not only would cruisers reloading torps from ADs be completely ahistorical and inaccurate, its partly, well, stupid.

It's not stupid. I betya that an AD gave torps to a cruiser at some point during WW2. It's just that torpedoes, and naval gun ammunition for that matter, were not as plentiful as bullets as this game may have you believe and having this restriction for ADs only rearming DDs is a step in the right direction in simulating this and alleviating one of the many problems the game has created by adopting a generic supply model and not placing some restrictions within the generic supply model. The fact that they stopped here (restricting torp ammo to a specific size port unless AGP, AD, AS is present or mines unless size 9 port or MLE present) yet did not continue regarding gun ammo is a mystery.

I won't dispute the possibility, that at one time a cruiser did obtain a torp from a AD.... wait a minute, the only US cruisers to use torpedoes are Atlantas, Oaklands, and Omahas. And while its doubtfun that any of the Atlanta's and Oaklands fired torpedoes in combat, that leaves the Omahas.

Still, back on point, the system would be gamed by players. Why pull cruisers (especially Jap ones that do have torpedoes) out when you can steal them from destroyers. Out of necessity a cruiser might get a torp or two from an AD, but operationally and as a matter of protocol, no way. It ain't gonna happen.

I think Atlanta and Juneau may have fired torps in the battles of Guadalcanal. Since neither survived to reload, they woudln't have used an AD.

The only Omaha that I know of that engaged in a surface combat was the one in the Battle of Komandorski's. I don't think any cruisers got close enough to fire torpedoes.

Oh, I forgot about Marblehead. She probably fired some torps. Again, she probably didn't survive long enough to reload. (I am not very familiar with her exploits or demise in the early part of the war)

Demise? Marblehead made it back to the United States via the Indian Ocean and Africa, was patched up and spent the rest of the war in the Atlantic. And no, she never used an AD.

Atlanta may have fired a torpedo in combat, but from what have read I don't think Juneau ever had the chance to.

spent the rest of the war in the Atlantic

Aha!! That would explain it. I don't care much about the atlantic. The pacific is my interest. I just assumed she died with Houston.

That's what I thought, until I saw a really nice article in Sea Classics back in '95. Man, how she ver survived is a mystery. Actually, the Allies claimed she had sunk, and were extremely puzzled when a 4 stack cruiser pulled up in the nearest port.

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

I agree with tanker here, it would simply be ahistoric and would add an unrealistic feature to the game.

plus it would make Ron complain.


oops....too late [:D]

IIRC, there had never been any operational instance of Cruisers receiveing torps from a tender. Tenders would have a DesDiv or DesRon assigned to it, and draw torps to it. Not only would cruisers reloading torps from ADs be completely ahistorical and inaccurate, its partly, well, stupid.

One problem here, the IJN routinely reloaded torpedoes on cruisers fromADs at forward bases. Don't confuse USN SOP with everybody else

Chez

But there are only a grand total of 3 Japanese ADs in the game. So really, I think we should leave it as is because 3 small, short legged ADs for Japan won't make much difference, but since the USN can convert ADs out the wazooo..... See my reasoning?

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

That's what I thought, until I saw a really nice article in Sea Classics back in '95. Man, how she ver survived is a mystery. Actually, the Allies claimed she had sunk, and were extremely puzzled when a 4 stack cruiser pulled up in the nearest port.

IIRC - she had been damaged in an air attack, and her steering gear knocked out. She was withdrawn from battle - going to NY via South Africa for refit.

Japanese can build ADs also but really doesn't have a reason too if they can only reload DDs. ADs are very versatile and should be able to resupply virtually any ammunition except large caliber shells.

Japan doesn't need any ADs in the SRA as she has a multitude of bases to reload from. However in the central Pacific, things are a little different. Not having an AD or any other ship available to reload torpedoes means that its very difficult to keep any cruisers forward deployed, especially in the Aleutians and Wake/Midway areas. You would have to send them to Kwaj or Truk to be reloaded.

As it wasn't a routine operation for the US, I have no problem not allowing them to do so. Japan could benefit from it though.

Chez

According to the manual [Page 75 in the Ebook Manual] (I dont play Japan), bulding ADs is an Allied only thing, and the only ADs in the game for Japan are the 3 torpedo transports.

If Japan can build ADs (and thus the manual wrong), and Allied cruisers can't reload from them, I say ok. But otherwise, I still say it shouldn't be done.

Considering that CLs are often used as DD Flot leaders, it is logical to assume that should the flot flagship have fired torps, they would reload them with the rest of the unit. To say they cant because they didnt is no more right then allowing players to decide what planes to upgrade or where to invade. The point of the "game" is to allow the players to explore other options and strategies other than those that were historically used, and that would extend as to whether a AD commander is going to say "no" to a CL skipper looking for 8 fish.