American Torpedoes

[Xilana]

Curious...

Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history.

[LoBaron]

As far as PBEM is concerned, you will not get many Japanese players to agree to this. Working torps can be absolutely devastating early war if an Allied player knows how to best deploy subs.

[zuluhour]

nice try.

[HexHead]

My IJ opponent agreed to this in a Scen 2 PbeM.

We're at the end of Dec41 & it's been OK, so far. Nothing spectacular - I may or may not have put a scare into a CV or two and perhaps a bit more - but maybe nothing.

In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far.

[Flicker]

IIRC the dud torpedoes are carried by USN fleet boats; Dutch, British, and USN Sugar boats can be fairly effective early in the war.

[kaleun]

IIRC the dud torpedoes are carried by USN fleet boats; Dutch, British, and USN Sugar boats can be fairly effective early in the war.

Yes, it is always nice to see the Dutch and S boats at work!.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a

Curious...

Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history.

Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far.

Have you, now? [;)]

Mostly reliable torps makes a difference against xAKs, as that's where most of your attacks will be, but it's certainly deadly to warships as well.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a

Curious...

Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history.

Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON.

IMO PDU On is just about as useful to the Allies as to Japan. A better tradeoff might be reliable torps for not having to pay PPs for marching across borders and Realistic R&D Off. Even then...reliable torps might have a far greater effect than 3k AV from Manchukuo and being able to change between R&D and production factories.

[HexHead]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: HexHead

In a Scen 1 PbeM, still early 42, I have sunk a CV with a Dutch boat (I think - somewhat sure). The Working Torps PbeM has seen a 'steadier' results curve for AKs, but that's about it, so far.

Have you, now? [;)]

Mostly reliable torps makes a difference against xAKs, as that's where most of your attacks will be, but it's certainly deadly to warships as well.

Small sample, one month, but just a little bit of difference seems apparent already. More like bagging six merchies instead of two in the opening weeks.

A guerre de course is now playable from the start. Attrition of merchant and tanker hulls, from the beginning - I'll take it. Sending IJN keels to the bottom is gravy.

[crsutton]

Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get.

The allied SS fleet is so big and grows so large that, with reliable torps, it will soon become almost impossible for the japs to move anything outside the LBA ASW umbrella.
Also, if you play DBB, the Japanese naval ASW is so nerfed that the game will really be umbalanced.

my 0.00002 cents

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: venividivici10044a

Curious...

Does anyone consider playing with fixed US torpedoes early when playing an opponent. I would think its a fair play given the ability of the players to change tactics/doctrine based on lessons learned from history.

Not much chance unless your opponent is asking for something totally non-historic as well..., like PDU ON.

IMO PDU On is just about as useful to the Allies as to Japan. A better tradeoff might be reliable torps for not having to pay PPs for marching across borders and Realistic R&D Off. Even then...reliable torps might have a far greater effect than 3k AV from Manchukuo and being able to change between R&D and production factories.

In truth, I was just making a point. What I would really ask for in exchange for PDU ON is "Withdrawals OFF". Not because I think the Allies need extra units..., but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place. This is just "busywork" (the unit is ALWAYS somewhere hard to get when it needs to be withdrawn).

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place

Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating.

[HexHead]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place

Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating.

Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
but to save the endless hours spent in hunting down the right unit and getting it to the right place

Either you are doing it wrong (by the intel screen/ship withdrawals), or you are hopelessly exaggerating.

Well, it is a PITA. As long as one is going to 'adjust' certain quasi-historical 'realities', why not this one? Do the 'extra' units make all that big a diff?

Are you kidding? Ships is only part of it. Countless air units, and most of all masses of LCUs get withdrawn. You bet that makes a difference.

And I might add that it is a piece of cake compared to managing the Japanese industry and avoid that single mistake that makes you lose the war...

[HexHead]

I dunno, I'd hafta look at the Ground W-draw screen again. Didn't seem like an immensity to me.

Frankly, if, like Jellicoe, one feels like one can lose the war in an afternoon, then one is in the wrong game.

I am diametrically opposite in this view. It's Petrosian, not Tal. It's a patient accumulation of perhaps small, yet telling, advantages, that, over months and years, integrate and fuse to enable victory on the map.

Still, the central point is Ahistorical is Ahistorical. I agreed to a Scen2 game with very few HRs. Esteemed opponent pulled a Mersing, which I had forgotten about. Tough, get used to it, crybaby.

I don't think No Ws would be a crusher - mebbe I'm wrong.

[axyarthur]

In my first game against AI, I made the mistake of turning reliable torpedoes on. The result is that by mid 1943, Japan has less than 100 AKs and xAks and exactly 1 AP afloat. Granted not all of them are sunk by subs, and this is the AI, but the effect can be devastating.
I stopped the game shortly after that.

[AW1Steve]

I find it very amusing that so many JFB's are always looking for an opponent to play an "upgraded" scenario that favors the Japanese , then proceed to come up with an amazing list of HR's to further emasculate the allies. THEN then crow about how good they are in their AAR's. [:D] Yet I never hear AFB's requesting mods or selection like "reliable torpedoes".

Now when I play as the Japanese (yes I know I haven't played them yet in a GC...but I've played them in every single other scenario to many players) I don't are if I win or lose , simply that I do better then the actual Japanese admiral did. I recognize the challenge. And accept it. I just think JFB's are (please insert wise ass sarcastic smiley here) pansy's. So there! [:D]

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Don't do it. If you get into 1945 as the Allies, you will be embarrassed that you even considered it. All things equal, the Japanese player needs all the help he can get.

So true.