"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[mogami]

Explanation:

#1
Everything is OK as it is and no change in WitP is needed regarding torpedo use from land bases.


#2
What if we require x tons of supply (1000 / 2000 / 3000 / 4000 / 5000 for example - 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 (especially in those cases where players off-load CV/CVE/CVL to land base and then conduct massive torpedo strikes).

This affects both sides and it is not one side penalty!


#3
Create change for torpedoes similar to exising rule for Allied 1000 lb AP bomb.

This is more-or-less RND (i.e. dice roll) and thus it does not allow player to affect it.


#4
Complete and huge rewrite of code that allows individual tracking of ammunition (IMHO thsi is a "pipe dream" that woudl never happen and it is only possible, evetually, for WitP II).

[treespider]

I see early on #3 seems to have supporters...my only concern with #3 is the resulting hoots and howls that the Japanese planes aren't carrying torpedos when flying out of a major installation. Hence why I voted for #2.

[kaleun]

Ditto

[michaelm75au]

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

[Feinder]

Then of course, there's the frustration of your planes waving at the ships of the invasion TF as they fly past, only to drop their bombs on the Battleships that can't be damaged anyways...

[;)]

-F-

[pauk]

what Feiner said. Then we are going to have poll "on what formula percentage should torp bombers relase torps" in future.
a) 30%
b) 60% etc....

don't get me wrong, i just imagined situaton where 40 Beauforts (or nells) hits BBs with bombs and get slaughtered from AAA for nothing....

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I see early on #3 seems to have supporters...my only concern with #3 is the resulting hoots and howls that the Japanese planes aren't carrying torpedos when flying out of a major installation. Hence why I voted for #2.

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Ditto

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

I agree with all of the above - to a point.

However, THAT is the situation that already exists for the Allied players...so why is that kind of frustration "just fine" for the allied player but unthinkable for the Japanese player?[X(]

Demo

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: treespider

I see early on #3 seems to have supporters...my only concern with #3 is the resulting hoots and howls that the Japanese planes aren't carrying torpedos when flying out of a major installation. Hence why I voted for #2.

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Ditto

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

I agree with all of the above - to a point.

However, THAT is the situation that already exists for the Allied players...so why is that kind of frustration "just fine" for the allied player but unthinkable for the Japanese player?[X(]

Demo

Who said it was "just fine"?

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: treespider

I see early on #3 seems to have supporters...my only concern with #3 is the resulting hoots and howls that the Japanese planes aren't carrying torpedos when flying out of a major installation. Hence why I voted for #2.

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Ditto

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

I agree with all of the above - to a point.

However, THAT is the situation that already exists for the Allied players...so why is that kind of frustration "just fine" for the allied player but unthinkable for the Japanese player?[X(]

Demo

Who said it was "just fine"?

I haven't noticed any suggestion in the poll above to treat the two issues equally...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

But this is EXACTLY the situation the Allies face in using a larger bomb. If it's "good for the goose", then it should also be "good for the gander". Had it been suggested that #2 be applied equally to larger Allied Bombs, I'd have voted for it.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I vote #2.
The problem with #3 is that the ability to use a torpedo will be totally random.
The player will have no control over it.

This could have massive impact on some turns where TFs are sitting off a base, and no torpedoes being used due to a bad series of rolls while the TF is clobbering the base.
Michael

I am (of course [;)]) for #2...


Leo "Apollo11"

[bradfordkay]

I am actually in favour of both 2 and 3 being used for a WITP patch, and #4 for any WITP2 that might come down the ways...

Remember, the die roll for torpedoes could be modified to allow torpedo attacks to happen more often than the die roll for 1000lbers allows. If it is instituted, it would be relatively easy to adjust in future patches if it upsets the game too much...

[Demosthenes]

Remember, the die roll for torpedoes could be modified to allow torpedo attacks to happen more often than the die roll for 1000lbers allows. If it is instituted, it would be relatively easy to adjust in future patches if it upsets the game too much...

I don't understand how this is progressing. There has been a large discussion on the over availability of torpedoes for land based bombers - hence this poll...great.

But why does anyone still think in terms of making torpedoes somehow more available than 1000lb AP bombs?
Weren't 1000lbrs far more available than torpedoes?

What am I missing here?

[bradfordkay]

Actually, I didn't know if they were more available or not. My point is that using such a die roll is modifiable if results seem off the mark... (remember, we've got some people claiming that any move to restrict torpedoes is going to castrate the Japanese war effort).

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Actually, I didn't know if they were more available or not. My point is that using such a die roll is modifiable if results seem off the mark... (remember, we've got some people claiming that any move to restrict torpedoes is going to castrate the Japanese war effort).

Which is just silly. Japanese lost the war due to being castrated in a production sense. SOme restriction is in order - and I'm a Japanese fanboy. [:D]

I voted #2.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

My vote (LOL) for WitP would be on a combo of #2 and #3, with the dice roll (after the supply check) weighted on a sliding acale (based on target ID) toward allowing torp attacks . i.e. CV/BB most likely, AP least likely.

Why based on target type? I reference the accounts of the Torp attacks on transports at Guadacanal, which include a series of great photos of one of the attacks in progress..

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[spence]

I sorta waver between 2 and 3 but decided on #2 becauseI liked the idea that the IJN player could plan ahead to provide a base with torpedos. I suppose #3 could also include some kind of modifier for larger base size or supply availability (increasing probability of torpedo armament). It's up to the coders how it flushes out anyway.

I did a bit of research looking back over the turns in a PBEM I have going (most of the turn files are still in my email box). My opponent has in 50 days launched somewhat over 30% of all aerial torpedo production since 1932 with his B5s, G3s and G4s. If that had happened in real life, somewhere in his empire, he'd be having problems with torpedo availability.

[pad152]

Supply requirement - let's face it the AI already cheats when it comes to supplies, so this will have little or no effect on games vs the AI.[8|]

The AI does no play by the same rules, so this would end being random for the AI.