Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

No Torp Naval atack option...

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> No Torp Naval atack option... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 8:00:20 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Would it be posable, if we do indead go with the ordance usage option being put forth which tracks the bomb/torp usage for the 4 priamy types of ordance carried on a CV, to select a non- torp naval atack option for planes that are capable fo doing so, this would if so selected arm the planes in question with the best bomb type for the sortie undertaken, and save the torps for the good stuff.




< Message edited by Brady -- 2/28/2004 6:08:53 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 8:12:09 AM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline
That is something that I would expect to see in a game such as "Carriers at War", which is a TACTICAL game. WiTP is not a tactical game.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 2
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 8:19:09 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
No it is not a tactacial game, but with on average two or three sorties worth only of torps, for any given CV, and since they are such an important tool for killing enemy capatol ships, Personaly with out this proposed option, I can see Not using my Torp planes for mishions that they would other wise be available for.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 3
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 4:19:49 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I agree with Raverdave that choosing loadouts is not for WitP. I voted the poll that way. there will be plenty of detail to manage without having to remember to check every planes loadout.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 4
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 4:59:20 PM   
DoomedMantis


Posts: 1911
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I agree this is not a tactical game, and there is already plenty of tactical elements in the game already

_____________________________

I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.

- Shakespeare

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 5
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 5:20:49 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
I think this is one of the few tactical features that should be included. I’m not sure about further micromanaging of CV air groups ordnance, leave it to AI, its TF commander job to choose best ordnance for every mission. Anti shipping on normal range – torps (heavy bombs when torps expired), on extended – AP bombs, ground/port/airfield – GP bombs.

Where I want more micromanaging is LBA, especially japanese. An option to switch Betty daitais to bombs while on naval attack, can save many bombers from mauling by flak on low altitudes when high casualties are not necessary, when attacking minor Allied convoy for example.

It can look like this:
(It doesn’t seem very complicated to me, not that awfully boring level of micromanaging.)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 2/28/2004 6:27:27 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DoomedMantis)
Post #: 6
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 5:51:30 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Eacctly what I was getting at Subchaser, realy this is about the only area whear I can see doing this and it would realy help to bring some history back to this aspect of the game. Also it is realy not going to put a big burdon on anyones work load, you nead to select Naval atack anyway, instead of hitting that switch you simply select either Bombs or torps.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 7
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:03:28 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
That may be Brady, but we aren't talking about one airgroup here. We're talking about all air groups, LBA and CV-based. Are you going to set all groups at a base or ship to one type of ammo or are you going to mix them and so have to deal with individual squadrons. We're talking about alot of units here.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 8
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:06:05 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

That is something that I would expect to see in a game such as "Carriers at War", which is a TACTICAL game.


Yeah, like keeping track of indivual ammo on the CV.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 9
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:17:54 PM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4538
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
And it would be as if Admiral Nimitz was consulted on every-day operations......not at all realistic.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 10
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:31:11 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Drex, every airgroupe neads to be set individualy anyway, unless their is now a way to isue orders to all units in a given area, even if the later were the case personaly I would still set them all speratly, and check them twice to make shure as I do in UV every turn, they are very valuable assest and not easly replaced, I do wory over them:)


rogueusmc : When you have to go and select what plane types are flying at what alt and wheater they are hitting a port or a naval atack at that moment you are the TF comander, or the CAG, not Nimitz, their are many comand leveal you nead to asume in UV and I should think WiTP as well.

Realy this is a very simple request and one that at face value is simple to implement, and for the players simple to use.

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 11
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:35:07 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
Hah you already order your squadron leaders on what altitude they should fly, day or night, to what target exactly, what mission, what units will be on escort, you monitor their experience, fatigue etc. Nimitz did not care about such things as well. We ALREADY control air groups on TACTICAL level, I think we should be able to use this option also. btw I offer this option only for land based level bombers on naval attack, yes there are many of them, but you don’t have to pick certain ordnance every time for every unit, let it be torpedoes for naval attack a priori, if you’re happy with them, do not use that switch. In situation when on outer rim base you have squadron with inexperienced pilots who won’t return from their maiden torpedo run, switch them to bombs and save half of this squadron, and again – you’re not going to use this option every day.

_____________________________


(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 12
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:39:23 PM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline
Yes, but at present, not keeping track of this particular tactical-level concern is producing really silly results all the way up to the operational and strategic levels as well, as demonstrated in the recent Kid/U2 AAR.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 13
Command level - 2/28/2004 6:55:21 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, In UV command level has always been from overall commander down to base or TF commander. This change will not introduce a new level of command. I'm not in favor of us selecting ammo only of the AI keeping track of types left on board. If CV only carried 2 or 3 loads of torpedos then a system that permits 6 strikes is incorrect.

The designers have allowed many inputs at levels below theatre commander in order to allow rational play results. Many items are abstract and others are more detailed. Because of the "park and pound" abilty currently in UV and alpha WITP unrealistic operations are permited. I think the reason for ammo loadouts is to prevent this. Any system that does so is an improvment. I voted for the 4 ammo types because when I simply added up the total ordnance onboard I saw the CV could still make excessive strikes of one type or another. If we use the 4 types then CV will be limited to making strikes of specific types to what was actually the case (or reasonably close) Another simple method would be:
Ammo onboard:
Land attack (ground/port/airfield) 3 strikes
Naval Attack: 3 torpedo strikes 5 bomb strikes (3 strikes composed of both torp and bomb and then 2 strikes of bomb only)

Of course my numbers above are only examples what the actual number would be would depend on the ammo carrying capacity of the actual ship involved.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/28/2004 11:59:54 AM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to CynicAl)
Post #: 14
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 6:57:13 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
If we can't choose our naval targets, why should we be allowed to choose ammo type? If torpedoes are the most effective anti-ship weapon then let the game automatically choose torps- or bombs if torps are used up. For ground attack, bombs are automatically chosen. You might choose bombs for a juicy transport TF only to have the attack go against an unescorted BB TF.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 15
Out of ammo - 2/28/2004 7:00:53 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Also I would never have a CV TF be totally out of ammo. Once the TF had made it's permited number of full strikes of each type it would still be allowed to conduct reduced (1/4?) strikes to represent using those 60kg and 30kg 100lb bombs or what remained of the wrong type ordnance onboard.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 2/28/2004 12:05:07 PM >


_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 16
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 7:10:26 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

If we can't choose our naval targets, why should we be allowed to choose ammo type? If torpedoes are the most effective anti-ship weapon then let the game automatically choose torps- or bombs if torps are used up. For ground attack, bombs are automatically chosen. You might choose bombs for a juicy transport TF only to have the attack go against an unescorted BB TF.


I’ve answered on this in another thread, it’s the matter of choice. Yes bombers with bombs can go after the target which demands torpedoes, but that will be my choice, my mistake. You’re talking about this in such way that I won’t be surprised if you’ll ask to restrict changing of altitude.

< Message edited by Subchaser -- 2/29/2004 2:31:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 17
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 7:25:45 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline
I agree with those that say this is not the sort of wargame where the player is supposed to be crawling around
down on the deck of the carrier telling the aircrews what types of ordnance to strap onto each plane wing.
Good grief!

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 18
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 7:33:25 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I don't ask for altitude restrictions but back to the discussion: if you get to choose your ammo type, shouldn't that decision be based on what target you have in mind? If naval targets can't be chosen why should you gamble that you have chosen the correct loadout?

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 19
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 8:13:22 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4699
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
Let's try this senario.

You have a CV TF and you know that there is an enemy CV TF in the area and you are willing to accept a CV-CV battle. You have your Topedo capable aircraft loaded with torpedos. You stumble upon an enemy TF with 2 or 3 AP in it and the AI launches two waves of Torpedo armed aircraft against it, thereby cutting your torpedos down to about 15% of what you can carry. Now what do you do? I can all ready hear the screams.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 2/28/2004 11:18:36 AM >

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 20
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 8:20:46 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline
Such are the fortunes of war... ;)

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 21
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 9:02:37 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I don't ask for altitude restrictions but back to the discussion: if you get to choose your ammo type, shouldn't that decision be based on what target you have in mind? If naval targets can't be chosen why should you gamble that you have chosen the correct loadout?


Of course I can’t say for sure what target it will be, but I can predict that certain types of targets won’t be within the range next turn while some others are most probably will be there. Unescorted BBs are pretty rare case actually, in the areas where I do not expect them, I can switch the bombers to attack with bombs, and in the areas where enemy fleet is active I can leave them with torpedoes.

I want to choose not just that or another type of ordnance (notice I’m not advocating an option to choose between the bomb types), I want to be able to choose method of naval attack. It doesn’t seem right when my best bomber pilots die like flies in desperate attempt to put torpedo into a small AP unloading in heavily defended port, if there was a chance to change their loadouts to bombs, the whole situation could be a bit different, Betties could try to get this not so important target from flak-safe altitude, non-important target – safer method of attack, conclusion on what target can be within the range most probably, should be based upon your intel and common sense.

When I’ll decide that more important targets, worth of a torpedo run, can be within the range, I’ll change loadout back to torpedoes. I can make right decision one time and I can make serious mistake next time, besides the fortune of war it depends on my ability to read the map of war.

_____________________________


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 22
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 9:15:16 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Let's try this senario.

You have a CV TF and you know that there is an enemy CV TF in the area and you are willing to accept a CV-CV battle. You have your Topedo capable aircraft loaded with torpedos. You stumble upon an enemy TF with 2 or 3 AP in it and the AI launches two waves of Torpedo armed aircraft against it, thereby cutting your torpedos down to about 15% of what you can carry. Now what do you do? I can all ready hear the screams.


These are two different problems, loadouts and wrong targets, btw as I remember it’s already fixed in WitP, if there is enemy CV TF, your carriers will attack them first. If torpedo attack on APs was carried out on the eve of CV battle, that’s another case, of course it can be painful, but your opponent can run into the same hassle. Here we can turn back and discuss why do we need that ‘attack only carriers’ mode for CV TFs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 23
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/28/2004 11:09:32 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I understand your thinking behind the decision but we not only don't know exactly what the target might be (it might not even be spotted yet) but we don't know which squadron will be launched toward that unknown target. The situation sounds quite complicated for a result that is a gamble.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 24
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 1:59:30 AM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I understand your thinking behind the decision but we not only don't know exactly what the target might be (it might not even be spotted yet) but we don't know which squadron will be launched toward that unknown target. The situation sounds quite complicated for a result that is a gamble.


This option can be used when situation is clear, target is already spotted, I know where it’s going (at least general direction) and I know that AA defenses of TF can be strong or it can be attacked only in port where CAP and additional port flak will make kamikazes out of Betties. More pilots will survive with probably the same results reached as with torpedo attack, minor if any.

Situation is simple, I want Betties to use bombs on ships when I think ratio between the losses and damage inflicted can be unacceptable. In all other cases I do not touch that switch button.

You said, that opponent’s ability to choose between bombs and torps will force you to do it also. But I can’t see how. This option is primary for IJN bombers, what you can to do in response to Betties dropping bombs on your ships… raise altitude of LR/CAP what else? The situation is balanced. Besides that, how many Allied types were used as conventional bombers and torpedo bombers simultaneously?

_____________________________


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 25
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 4:54:44 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I'm sorry Subchaser, the situation is seldom clear and the intent of a strike is to harm the enemy as much as you can. Its the CAP that hurts you as much as the AA. Its a lot of complication to save some torpedoes. Let us use one ammo type and hold the CV strikes to a realistic number to reflect the ammo they really carried. The poll reflects a 4 ammo choice but at least it should be a toggled preference.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 26
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 5:42:47 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4699
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Let's try this senario.

You have a CV TF and you know that there is an enemy CV TF in the area and you are willing to accept a CV-CV battle. You have your Topedo capable aircraft loaded with torpedos. You stumble upon an enemy TF with 2 or 3 AP in it and the AI launches two waves of Torpedo armed aircraft against it, thereby cutting your torpedos down to about 15% of what you can carry. Now what do you do? I can all ready hear the screams.


These are two different problems, loadouts and wrong targets, btw as I remember it’s already fixed in WitP, if there is enemy CV TF, your carriers will attack them first. If torpedo attack on APs was carried out on the eve of CV battle, that’s another case, of course it can be painful, but your opponent can run into the same hassle. Here we can turn back and discuss why do we need that ‘attack only carriers’ mode for CV TFs.


No they are not. Maybe I didn't make it clear, you have NOT spotted the enemy CV TF, you just know it is in the area when your TF Comander launches all torpedeo aircraft twice with torpedeos loaded. The enemy sees this and presto moves as fast as possible to inteercept you since you have few if any torpedeos to use against him.

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 27
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 7:18:19 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
This option will only improve game play, and clearly not impart any extra work or wory, unless your going to agonise over seelcting bombs or torps, personaly the AI is so bad at making these deschions that anything would be better than it is at doing it. Considering the load restrictions were going to get (the 4 ammo types for CV's) this is realy a good idea. Espichaly for the Japanese whos diver bombers cary half the ordance load of their allied counterparts (for most of the war) and whos bombs will Not signafagantly damage a US BB. Torpedos are Very important to all sides and particulary the Japanese, who suffer heavy atation on any torp atack, being able to chuse the load out will greatly improve their effectiveness. Both sides will beniifit from this in the CV catagory, considering the limited number of torps carried.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 28
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 9:03:58 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3505
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
There is one aspect that everyone seems to be forgetting. So you have 45 torpedoes.. Which is roughly enough for 3 full strikes... So do we give a CV Torpedo Ammo of 3 ? If so, what if you only have half a squadron of TBs ? Should they consume the same amount of Torpedo ammo as a full squadron ?
Perhaps we should simply have X torpedoes and X bombs and leave it at that. Each aircraft carries 1 unit of either when they leave the CV... That way if only half your squadron actually attacks, you don't use a full salvo of ammo...

Xargun

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 29
RE: No Torp Naval atack option... - 2/29/2004 4:35:08 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I'm sorry Subchaser, the situation is seldom clear and the intent of a strike is to harm the enemy as much as you can. Its the CAP that hurts you as much as the AA. Its a lot of complication to save some torpedoes.


I do not agree, but since it’s only me and Brady who think that this option is vital necessity and because it most probably won’t be available in WitP, lets finish this. Just one last argument.

Attack on US warships Coral Sea - 7 may ’42.
13 Nells – 2 x 250kg bomb
20 Nells – 1 x torpedo

Attack on British Z-force
18 Nells – 2 x 250kg bomb
14 Nells – 1 x 500kg bomb
23 Nells – 1 x torpedo
26 Betty – 1 x torpedo

etc. etc. etc.

There are so many examples of IJN naval bomb attacks, sometimes there were only bombs and no torpedoes at all. Why? Group commanders did not want to risk their pilots when possible results were not worth it.

quote:

Let us use one ammo type and hold the CV strikes to a realistic number to reflect the ammo they really carried.


Hmm… so you think that carriers carried a lot more torpedoes. What are your sources for this?

quote:

The poll reflects a 4 ammo choice but at least it should be a toggled preference.


Agree.

_____________________________


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> No Torp Naval atack option... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.183