Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US Torpedo problems in the game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> US Torpedo problems in the game Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 4:40:35 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2084
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal
Post #: 1
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 5:51:33 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1261
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
S-boats & Dutch subs have enough oomph to power the Allies in the 1942 war, as an Allied player i see no reason to give HR concessions to the IJ in exchange for reliable torps, which only effect the USN fleet boats.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 2
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 5:57:11 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Well in the eyes of some players the Japanese are only allowed to take their starting positions (expansion phase) and the go from defeat to defeat. A little resistance is usually welcome to make things interesting but dont dare to win a major battle.

Well this is indeed historical but simply no fun at all (for a Japanese player) For the same reasons people usually wont play a game like.

War in the Balkan, the struggle against the Axis.

Can you do better than Dušan Simović ?

_____________________________



(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 3
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 6:07:33 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6238
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well this is indeed historical but simply no fun at all (for a Japanese player) For the same reasons people usually wont play a game like.

War in the Balkan, the struggle against the Axis.

Can you do better than Dušan Simoviæ ?


(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 4
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 6:21:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8606
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal


Why does golf provide for handicaps? So players of different skill levels can play together.

Or, some players see this as a game and not an historical sim, and want to explore what-ifs.

Probably other reasons.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 5
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 7:57:40 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2084
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal


Why does golf provide for handicaps? So players of different skill levels can play together.

Or, some players see this as a game and not an historical sim, and want to explore what-ifs.

Probably other reasons.


I understand the idea of exploring things, but this seems like such a major concession given what it will do. As jmalter points out, the mark 10 torpedoes are not that bad and the Dutch and British boats don't have much trouble at all. In the historical approach both sides have times when they can "kick" butt (historically speaking).... Japan in the beginning and Allies in the middle and end To me it appears to be challenge enough to take that edge away when the opponent has this historical "advantage". But I can see that if you have played the historical game so many times, it might get boring... ok, thanks for the input folks. Hal

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/6/2012 11:20:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8606
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I understand the idea of exploring things, but this seems like such a major concession given what it will do. As jmalter points out, the mark 10 torpedoes are not that bad and the Dutch and British boats don't have much trouble at all. In the historical approach both sides have times when they can "kick" butt (historically speaking).... Japan in the beginning and Allies in the middle and end To me it appears to be challenge enough to take that edge away when the opponent has this historical "advantage". But I can see that if you have played the historical game so many times, it might get boring... ok, thanks for the input folks. Hal


Canoerebel and PH are playing an AARed game with dud torpedoes off. Reading it might provide more data on how much it has changed htings between highly experienced players.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 12:28:34 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7183
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Yep, I would not do it but perhaps vs the most experienced player. You don't see it happen much.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 8
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 1:03:54 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2084
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
Will do, good tip, thanks. Hal

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 2:04:53 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8606
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Can you do better than Dušan Simoviæ ?


I can't even spell it.


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 10
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 11:54:27 AM   
ecwgcx


Posts: 475
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline
Perhaps it is because many, if not most of the problems with the Mk 14 could have and should have been identified BEFORE the war started. If it were not for beurocratic inertia or down right incompetence on the part of Beuord the Fleet boats would have had effective torps much earlier. Problems with depth, the magnetic exploder and even the firing pin were all noticed and reported within the first months of the war. I like the idea of a more variable time table for increasing the effectiveness of the torpedoes. I play where after a certain number of "Dud/Failed to explode" attacks I will change to the non-dud setting. This simulates the info getting to someone (Nimitz?) who listens to the sub skippers and forces change. I think this does a couple of things: it forces the allied player to ACTUALLY USE his subs in a more realistic manner than many players will considering they know the torps are borked, it give the Allied player something to do besides hide for the first six months of the war, and since the Japanese player knows which ships to stop building and which planes to do excellerated R & D on before the war starts thanks to the magic of hindsight (or is It foresight) it is a form of balance.
My personal HR is a sub has to have had a dud attack and survive the war patrol in order for it to count. In addition, if there is a successful attack then the dud doesn't count. After 100 or so of these dud war patrols then I draw every sub back to port and then turn off the dud option. My last game took until mid-42 or so before this happened.
Anyway, just my 2 yen.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 11
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 2:49:31 PM   
Dobey

 

Posts: 398
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone remember a little thing called "Historical Sub Doctrine" from WITP? Basically when turned "on" the Japanese subs would follow their historical doctrine and mostly ignore transports to attack capital ships.

Long story short I'm pretty sure no one ever used it....ever and it was simply removed from WITP AE with the setting hard coded to off.
The argument was generally something like "As the overall commander I shouldn't have my hands tied in the game, just because the historical commanders decided to do <blank>". So if the Idea that the Japanese subs should be expected to act historically was considered so outrageous the even the option for them to do so was removed I can see that a reasonable argument could be made to turn off historical torps for the allies.

REMEMBER: The Japanese player knows from day one that the US subs will be a viable threat at some point and is training his Aircraft an ships to form a formidable ASW force far more effective than Japan was historically able to deploy. The fact that the Japanese player can make submarine operations off the home islands effectively a one way trip means that I would argue the US subs should at least have some chance to hit back.

(in reply to ecwgcx)
Post #: 12
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 5:17:15 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Well this is indeed historical but simply no fun at all (for a Japanese player) For the same reasons people usually wont play a game like.

War in the Balkan, the struggle against the Axis.

Can you do better than Dušan Simović ?

BLASPHEMY!
YUGOSLAVIA 1941 is great Android game!

(OK, its kinda crappy, there are like 6-7 units for every side, and game takes around 10 turns, but I managed to stop AXIS easily. Not that there is much strategy there - just dig in cities, and wait)

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 13
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 6:37:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8606
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone remember a little thing called "Historical Sub Doctrine" from WITP? Basically when turned "on" the Japanese subs would follow their historical doctrine and mostly ignore transports to attack capital ships.

Long story short I'm pretty sure no one ever used it....ever and it was simply removed from WITP AE with the setting hard coded to off.
The argument was generally something like "As the overall commander I shouldn't have my hands tied in the game, just because the historical commanders decided to do <blank>". So if the Idea that the Japanese subs should be expected to act historically was considered so outrageous the even the option for them to do so was removed I can see that a reasonable argument could be made to turn off historical torps for the allies.

REMEMBER: The Japanese player knows from day one that the US subs will be a viable threat at some point and is training his Aircraft an ships to form a formidable ASW force far more effective than Japan was historically able to deploy. The fact that the Japanese player can make submarine operations off the home islands effectively a one way trip means that I would argue the US subs should at least have some chance to hit back.


The problem with your argument is that the IJN never practiced this doctrine. Look up the numbers of merchant ships sunk by Japanese subs. I believe the devs took it out of AE because it never really was a doctrine, despite being talked to death here and elsewhere.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Dobey)
Post #: 14
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/7/2012 11:46:52 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3710
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal


It is one thing if a Japanese player wants to vary his game experience by allowing US reliable torpedoes, and in exchange gains some semi compensating benefit elsewhere. However IMHO, if a Japanese player agrees to this because they believe they can gain a benefit elsewhere which benefits the Japanese war effort more than the Allied war effort gains from having reliable US torpedoes, they are very much mistaken. Such a trade off sees the Japanese war effort disadvantaged in these ways.

1. It will tempt the Japanese player to strike Manila rather than Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. More often than not that is a poor decision whose poor strategic consequences would only be mitigated to a limited degree if 90-100% of the subs in Manila are sunk outright. Otherwise the adverse strategic consequences are:


  • Allied ship repair yards are not occupied long term with crippled capital ships. Consequently Allied recovery from early naval battles is much improved and acts as a substantial force multiplier
  • there is no stress placed on the at start very fragile Allied aircraft production run. In particular the usual horendous day 1 losses to PBYs will not occur. Almost immediately the Allied player will have sufficient "eyes" to establish meaningful fleet and ASW search zones whereas normally it will take many months to do so following a Pearl Harbor strike
  • with his intact Pearl Harbor strategic forces the Allies can launch early spoiling counter attacks


2. At the start it is a race against time for Japan to acquire the real estate it needs. Sinking subs but leaving intact the surface fleet does not assist this strategic Japanese imperative; in fact it hinders it. No early war Japanese invasion fleet can ever, under any circumstances, be defeated by Allied subs alone. Allied airpower can do it, but at the start it is too weak to realistically stand a chance. The only thing which can at the beginning is the presence of Allied surface ships. This is why Japanese players always give great thought to the early destruction of Force Z. At the very least, the existence of a possible Allied surface naval intercept forces the Japanese player to be more circumspect in their early offensive operations.

3. Even if 90-100% of the Manila subs are sunk outright on 7 December 1941, there are plenty more in the pipeline coming, and quite soon too. The pileline for Allied capital ships is much, much . In any case not all USN subs are present at Manila. The end result is that the Japanese player is confronted from the beginning with having to combat a much more efficient and cost effective (from the Allied POV regarding fuel and supply consumption) weapon system. Allied pilots start off ill equipped to sink Japanese combat and merchant ships. Allied surface ships are very inefficient at commerce raiding and too valuable to lose. Which leaves subs;


  • quite expendable but still able to sneak in to the killing fields
  • equipped with the pre-eminent anti ship weapon of the era, ergo the torpedo (whether launched from the air or sea)
  • operating at a time when Japanese ASW assets are at their weakest
  • impose an early convoy requirement which steals assets that otherwise could be used to further the prime strategic directive viz capturing real estate



Alfred

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 15
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 3:58:02 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2084
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
I have to agree with your analysis Alfred, I just don't see any counter balancing HR (that is "realistic") that could outweigh the reliable torpedo option. In my games as an allied player even with the faulty torpedoes I've managed to sink quite a few Jap units including CVs. The amount of times I've had duds hit on Japanese targets is amazing... including major capitol units. The Japanese simply don't have the yard capacity to repair ships at the rate they can be damaged, as you say, by the ship killer of the day (although the 1000 pounders are not bad!). Given that the Mk 10 and Dutch subs are enough of a problem, I can't imagine the calamity that having reliable Mk 12 torpedoes would befall the Japanese player.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 16
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 4:13:29 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5180
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
I think that many JFB allow it as a counter to asking that the AFB play a scn 2 game.

Having seen what scen 2 allowed the JFB (not the DBB version) I would consider it a minimum handout to the AFB.

Another dream wish, allow the AFB to spend PP to research better torpedoes, they might spring a surprise with them arriving 6 mths early, or late.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 17
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 5:02:35 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
And don't forget that the reliable torpedo setting will also affect the torpedoes used by TBD/TBFs and USN CLs and DDs. Thus making the USN surface fleets and USN air launched torpedoes more effective.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 18
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 6:27:28 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Just to play Devil's advocate, does anyone remember a little thing called "Historical Sub Doctrine" from WITP? Basically when turned "on" the Japanese subs would follow their historical doctrine and mostly ignore transports to attack capital ships.

Long story short I'm pretty sure no one ever used it....ever and it was simply removed from WITP AE with the setting hard coded to off.
The argument was generally something like "As the overall commander I shouldn't have my hands tied in the game, just because the historical commanders decided to do <blank>". So if the Idea that the Japanese subs should be expected to act historically was considered so outrageous the even the option for them to do so was removed I can see that a reasonable argument could be made to turn off historical torps for the allies.

REMEMBER: The Japanese player knows from day one that the US subs will be a viable threat at some point and is training his Aircraft an ships to form a formidable ASW force far more effective than Japan was historically able to deploy. The fact that the Japanese player can make submarine operations off the home islands effectively a one way trip means that I would argue the US subs should at least have some chance to hit back.


The problem with your argument is that the IJN never practiced this doctrine. Look up the numbers of merchant ships sunk by Japanese subs. I believe the devs took it out of AE because it never really was a doctrine, despite being talked to death here and elsewhere.


Moose is right. If someone actually look what japanese subs did during the war, they would not talk about "sub doctrine". As early as December 1941 many subs patrolling around DEI and Malaya was assigned to hunt allied merchants.

Even without any kind of "sub doctrine", in this game it's really hard to archieve even historical kill rates with Japanese subs.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 19
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 1:24:22 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal



Might just be a "trade off". Virtually all the other "options" in the game are pro-Japanese, so it might just be some "horse trading" in the starting negotiations. "I want boosted starting forces and more reinforcements, PDU on, surprise on, historic start off, and the ability to pound PH forever!" "OK, I want my torpedoes to work like they're supposed to." "Hey.., thant's not fair!"

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 20
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 3:52:36 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7148
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks,

I've read in a number of threads that some Japanese players have made "concessions" to the allied player in allowing the US to have reliable torpedoes from the beginning of the game. My question is why would this be done? First the reality is that the US torpedoes were crud and second this would entirely skew the game in favor of the allies.... Why would either side want this (in the long run, the Japanese player is in trouble anyway), other than to find out how badly the Japanese would suffer at the hands of good torpedoes (which would decrease the challenge of the game)? Thanks in advance... Hal


Why does golf provide for handicaps? So players of different skill levels can play together.

Or, some players see this as a game and not an historical sim, and want to explore what-ifs.

Probably other reasons.



+1

I don't mind giving a few concessions to make the game more fun for both players.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 4:12:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25309
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The problem with your argument is that the IJN never practiced this doctrine. Look up the numbers of merchant ships sunk by Japanese subs. I believe the devs took it out of AE because it never really was a doctrine, despite being talked to death here and elsewhere.


You are correct. Japanese sub commanders, like commanders of any nation loved to get warships in the cross-hairs if they could, but Japanese orders and dispositions/target preferences came from Sixth Fleet HQ, not "doctrine." When ordered to conduct anti-shipping operations, Sixth fleet did so with varying degrees of success, some of them very successful. Problem was this didn't occur very often. Bad for them, good for the Allies.

On the opposite side of the coin from target joy, Japanese sub commanders (not to mention their crews) despised supply runs such as those conducted during the Guad. campaign. They felt, rightly that their skills and lives were being wasted on efforts that would yield little gain to the war effort....but they did em regardless because orders were orders and suffered accordingly as a result. Subs, especially large expensive subs make poor supply barges.

Decision was made to pull the option and free up the GUI for other options as a result.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 22
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/8/2012 8:40:58 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
In my current PBEM game, I have a mere hand full of subs in late '43 sinking IJN merchant shipping almost daily. This is a rather recent development in our game (within the last 2-3 months). If I was doing this to his shipping starting in early '42, I'd imagine the impacts would be crippling.

No IJ player should ever allow Reliable Torpedoes imo. All of Alfred's points fully endorsed.

< Message edited by aphrochine -- 10/8/2012 8:41:10 PM >


_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 23
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/9/2012 6:08:37 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1570
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: online
Something to ponder on as well. 

The Japanese military had, to the best of my knowledge, no idea about issues with the American torpedo.  And they went to war anyways (reasoning explained elsewhere).  Changing the exploder to a working model just adds another 'what if' to the game, and a very plausible one as well. 

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 24
RE: US Torpedo problems in the game - 10/15/2012 6:25:10 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 245
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
I think the reason was nailed above - if the US gets reliable torps, the Japanese can start training masses of pilots on ASW and rush building escorts with a clear conscience.

Otherwise you're spending all that effort on a threat that doesn't exist (yet).

Both players, of course, get to take advantage of hindsight (not to mention superb intelligence on the enemy's starting OrBat compared to real life), but the Japanese player also gets to tailor his reinforcements. The Allies are denied their intelligence advantage. Etc., etc., etc.

Having the Allies figure out their torpedo problems pre-war is actually a minor adjustment compared to those which are already incorporated in the game.

If I put in a HR which said the Japanese player had to flip a coin every time he started planning a major op and notify me if it came up "heads" he'd probably refuse... but Coral Sea and Midway only happened because the 'coin' came up heads.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> US Torpedo problems in the game Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113