Small/quick/simple idea how to restrict land based bomber torpedo attacks...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

I first posted this small/quick/simple idea of mine few weeks ago but I can't find it right now using the "Search" option in forum (that one really really needs serious overhaul! [:D])...

In essence the torpedo attacks from bombers based on land for both sides were few and apart because torpedoes were complicated weapons needing skilful technicians, storage and maintenance (i.e. good base with good support) - bombs were more available and used in most cases (even for aircraft for which torpedo was primary weapon).

In order to fix this and have historic rates of land based torpedo attack by bombers I thought of this small/quick/simple idea!


Leo's idea for small/quick/simple land based bomber torpedo attack requirement

What if we require 5000 tons of supply (or 1000 or 2000 - we can adjust the number easily) for _EACH_ bomber to carry torpedo instead of bombs on "Naval Attack"?

This supply would not be consumed - it would only be requirement.

That way we give player a chance to maintain bases with land based torpedo capability if he/she wants but it also pressure him/her to really put a lot of effort (in supply) to enable it!

With this for small/quick/simple way we would easily stop unrealistic usage of large number of torpedo capable bombers based on land and make those attack exception and not a rule!


What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I posted this to "Wish List" section as well but I though this one is worth main forum as well... [;)]

[mogami]

Hi (It would take 45,000 supply to fly a 9 plane Chutai?)


Whatever It Is, I'm Against It

By Harry Ruby (music) and Bert Kalmar (lyrics)

Performed by Groucho Marx in "Horse Feathers" (1932)

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood --
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it --
On general principles I'm opposed to it!

Chorus: He's opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He's opposed to it!

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And I've kept yelling since I commenced it,
I'm against it!

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

(It would take 45,000 supply to fly a 9 plane Chutai?)

Not take - just require (i.e. the supply would not be consumed if they fly)!


BTW, the "1 plane = 5000 tons" requirement can be whatever we want (1000 tons or 2000 tons or whatever).


Right now we can, for example, have hundreads of land based bombers attack with torpedoes on "Naval Attack" and that is not historic or OK (I saw many many AARs where players offloaded their carrier torpedo bombers to land base and created "unsinkable CV" with same massive torpedo capability)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[el cid again]

I do not see a problem here. The concept of land based, long range torpedo armed bombers was one intiated by Japan long before the war - and to a lesser degree there was corresponding Russian and American research. We cannot simulate the possibilities if they are restricted away.
The problems were more operational than logistical, and their solutions are below the level we can see as players. If Adm Nimitz told me "go make this work" I could have done - and if a fictional Adm doesn't want to it is entirely a matter of operational utility. [See Japanese Aircraft 1910 - 1941. You will learn of a secret bomber - it was destroyed to keep it so - and of another used in the war with China but mostly attritted by the time we get involved - and one Adm Yamamoto when he was in charge of plane research.]

[bradfordkay]

Here's the deal, Cid. IRL there were only a relatively few allied transports sunk by torpedo carrying aircraft.

A long time ago I did some "quick and dirty" research on shipping losses and what I found was the losses of US shipping to aerial torpedo attack was far less than what we see in WITP.



type PI/SRI Solomons/NG/CP late war invasions
capital ships 2 2 1
DD & DE 1 8 3
Mine & patrol 4 1 2
Flt Aux 4 5 1
merchant 13 6 5

I don't claim these numbers to be the absolute last word, but I believe that they are close to the truth.

Of the merchants, only two were listed as sunk by aerial torpedo. The Naval lists did not mention whether they were aerial torpedoes or bombs, and included the carrier battles.


The merchant info came from:
http://www.usmm.org/shipsunkdamaged.html


In my latest save, June 14, '42, there are already 87 ships sunk by the 18" Type 91 torpedo. That's substantially more than were sunk in the whole war. This game has not ben as particularly bloody as some earlier ones of mine, so I would not say that it's an anomaly to see the numbers of losses I'm seeing in this game.

Therefore I am in favor of any move to limit the aerial torpedo attacks on both sides. (There's also been 18 Japanese ships sunk in this game by the 18" MkXII torpedo, favorite weapon of the Swordfish and Beaufort.)

[mogami]

Hi, I would prefer that players learn to stay out of enemy air range rather then castrate the air groups.

There is a very good reason the Allies lost so few ships to land based enemy air after the very early portion of the war. They stayed out of range. The whole idea is gain air control before you move ships into range.
Making it difficult for air to defend against ships just encouregs the old
"Make a massive TF and sail in and take your luimps" style of play only now the lumps will be less and so this type of play will replace actual Operational planning.

why bother gaining control of the air and providing air cover if the enemy can't attack you in the first place.

[bradfordkay]

Russ, I do keep my ships out of air range as much as possible. I will admit to about fifteen AK losses trying to resupply the PI in the early months, but the majority of these losses are in trying to resupply Darwin, Port Moresby and Milne Bay. Are you saying that the allies never sent supply ships into these ports?

[ChezDaJez]

While the idea of limiting land-based torpedo attack has merit, it simply can't be done in the game. There is no way I as a player can prevent torpedoes from being loaded on any type torpedo bomber regardless of how much or little supply there is at any base. In the case of the Betty/Nell, they will load torpedoes at any size 4 or greater base if I set them on naval attack and they are at normal range. The same with Swordfish and Beauforts if they are flying from an appropriate base. I certainly wouldn't ground my aircraft because there wasn't 5000 or even 500 supply points available. And If I fly them, they will have torps. I can't stop them from loading torps.

I think a better way is to model torpedoes as a specific type ordnance but that requires code changes. Another way is to limit torpedo loading to a specific size base like with ships. But that also requires code changes.

Maybe WitP II will model it better. As far as WitP I goes, I don't see any practical way around it.

Chez

[bradfordkay]

Steve, I unfortunately have to agree with you.

I don't think that the present code could handle a check for "base having 5000 supply x # a/c carrying torpedoes" without having to use up the "5000 supply x # a/c carrying torpedoes".

[ChezDaJez]

Steve, I unfortunately have to agree with you.

Yes, unfortunately there is no way to prevent it from happening.

However, this discussion brought an idea to mind that might be workable in a future patch or for WitP II. That is is "charge" varying amounts of supply for every ordnance type being loaded. Something along the lines of:


10000 supply per A-bomb load
150 supply per 2000lb bomb load
125 supply per torpedo load
120 supply per 800kg bomb load
75 supply per 1000lb bomb load
60 supply per 500lb bomb load
30 supply per 250lb bomb load

and so forth for other bomb/rocket/mine types. The above values are for example only and do not represent what might be the best supply expenditure values. The point values should represent the rarity of the weapon and its damage potential.

So for a Betty Daitai (27 aircraft) to load torpedos, it would cost 3375 supply points. On the other hand, it would cost only 810 supply to load with 250lb bombs.

A B-17 BG (64 aircraft) loading 500lb bombs would expend 3840 supply points (64 x 60).

The cost would be per aircraft rather than per weapon to cut done on the amount of recoding required. The values would have to be readjusted if they were to represent individual bombs.

I think that this would be a more accurate reflection of weapons expenditures and would force players to keep their bases better supplied. If a base had insufficient supply to launch a full group/daitai, it would only be able support defensive missions. An invading player would have to bring lots of supply and land it in order to launch major airstrikes from any newly captured airfield.

This is just a rough idea and needs a lot more thought put into to it to see if its a viable way of doing this.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I do not see a problem here. The concept of land based, long range torpedo armed bombers was one intiated by Japan long before the war - and to a lesser degree there was corresponding Russian and American research. We cannot simulate the possibilities if they are restricted away.
The problems were more operational than logistical, .]

Agree with you Chez..., but "long-ranged, torpedo-armed bombers" is relative. Compared to the rest of the world the Japanese did have very long range land-based torpedo bombers. But that range was 5-600 miles with a torpedo, though considerably more with various bomb loads. Putting supply restrictions on Bettys and Nells is not the answer. Range restrictions makes more sense historically. The other problem with this kind of attack once the Allies realized it was possible is that in the face of adequate defense the losses are horrendous, as witness the Japanese efforts off Guadalcanal.

[dtravel]

One B-17 takes almost all the cargo capacity of a small Allied AK to load? Wow. [:D]

More seriously, if such a variable cost for aircraft loadouts scheme were to be implemented you would also have to give the player the option to select the loadout himself. Given what I've seen and heard about Grigsby games, I don't see him giving the player that much control.

[bradfordkay]

" One B-17 takes almost all the cargo capacity of a small Allied AK to load? Wow"

That's one B17 Group, consisting of 72 aircraft... at 3 tons per aircraft, it is 216 tons of bombs, which is nearly the 225 ton capacity of the smallest allied AK in CHS ... [:'(]

So maybe his numbers need some work...



Oops! Maybe my numbers need some work as well... " A B-17 BG (64 aircraft) loading 500lb bombs would expend 3840 supply points (64 x 60). " That's a group of 64 B17s... make that 192 tons, still nearly the 225 ton AK. Of course, I rather doubt that most coastal schooners were capable of carrying the full bomb load for a B17 group. One of those monster five masted lumber carriers, maybe...

[ChezDaJez]

Agree with you Chez..., but "long-ranged, torpedo-armed bombers" is relative. Compared to the rest of the world the Japanese did have very long range land-based torpedo bombers. But that range was 5-600 miles with a torpedo, though considerably more with various bomb loads. Putting supply restrictions on Bettys and Nells is not the answer. Range restrictions makes more sense historically. The other problem with this kind of attack once the Allies realized it was possible is that in the face of adequate defense the losses are horrendous, as witness the Japanese efforts off Guadalcanal.

Were you replying to me or to el cid, Mike?

You do make a very good point about the Betty's range with a torp. The Betty could only load a torp externally and had to have the bombbay doors removed to do so. This additional drag would have increased fuel consumption. To what extent, I'm not sure.

I do also favor load restrictions. Short of accounting for every bean, bullet and bomb, some type of supply expenditure for a particular weapons load would also be a good idea.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

One B-17 takes almost all the cargo capacity of a small Allied AK to load? Wow.

Hey! I didn't actually calculate all the numbers to see if they were workable or not.

But I do kind of like the idea of B-17s requiring an entire cargo ship load to bomb up though[:D][:D][:D].

Chez

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I don't think that the present code could handle a check for "base having 5000 supply x # a/c carrying torpedoes" without having to use up the "5000 supply x # a/c carrying torpedoes".

Why do you think that changes to the code would not allow the "requirement" check you mention above?

With Joe and Don taking charge of WitP code anything is possible (in due time)!

I really think that the sky is the limit... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Grotius]

Wellll, if the sky's the limit, then maybe the game should track torpedoes or ordnance -- and aviation fuel, heh. Be careful what we wish for! But seriously, the game does have a means for limiting use of torpedoes by DDs and PTs: you have to visit a big base, or an appropriate tender. So the game has already gone down this path a bit.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

One of the most stupid idea I have ever seen.

[Big B]

Leo, the idea is a good one I think. But it would take a patch to achieve.

If Matrix would consider a patch - why not make the Japanese go through the same series of checks that the allies need to carry 1000lb AP bombs for LBs? The allies rarely get 1000lbrs (relatively).

And while we are at it - why not up the base size requirement to level six for both Allied and Japanese bombers to carry their ant-shipping ordinance?

[el cid again]

Here's the deal, Cid. IRL there were only a relatively few allied transports sunk by torpedo carrying aircraft.

A long time ago I did some "quick and dirty" research on shipping losses and what I found was the losses of US shipping to aerial torpedo attack was far less than what we see in WITP.

OK - so what? Players may not be playing with the same operational assignments. And IF you restrict torpedo bombing to reduce transport losses, don't you also impact warship losses exactly the same way? I don't see quite what the point of this is:

IF the capability exists, what is the problem?

Frankly WITP is a very simple model. I think you are asking way too much of the model. If we get a more sophisticated model - then maybe we can change loadouts. But in that case, I still think players will use torpedoes more than history. The ONLY way to stop that is to go for torpedo production - Japan couldn't make that many. We just fabricate them out of supply points in the field, as it were.