|
Post by dizzy on Jun 28, 2019 13:46:48 GMT -6
ramjb, thank you for that 'detailed' analysis. I don't know enough about national doctrines in torpedo storage or enough about British or Japanese torpedo storage to argue the point, especially after you illuminated me on several key aspects. I'm quite satisfied with the current implementation and confident in NWS's research conclusions to date. What I read about the 12 spares was quite interesting, and posted the 'short' piece because current game design exacerbates the limited torp storage with the flaw of torp planes dumping their ordnance on any KE's they spot before flying their full distance to their target. I'll disagree with your argument on the range of a plane carrying a torpedo in a specific case. I have a TB that is M rated for Torpedo, yet the bomb load is only 800 lbs. I'd disagree with the math on that and argue that if a torpedo weighs 1800-2200 lbs, it'd be more likely to fall under the H Torpedo category for range than M. I don't really have any snazzy argument for this other than common sense. Most of my other planes rated M have at least a 1400 lb weight carry for M which is closer to the weight of a torp, so maybe the minimum requirement could be raised a little. It's such a minor thing, it's almost not worth arguing, considering their are bigger fish to fry. Just thought I'd point it out in case it's more widespread than it is.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 28, 2019 13:55:19 GMT -6
If you're calling out oddities, I'm looking at the Nakajima(fifth plane down) where medium and heavy load are the same, but medium range is 100 miles longer.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 28, 2019 13:57:41 GMT -6
If you're calling out oddities, I'm looking at the Nakajima(fifth plane down) where medium and heavy load are the same, but medium range is 100 miles longer. It does do a pretty darned good job. It's certainly a part of the game I like. But yes, it does occasionally do a few odd things.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 28, 2019 14:01:24 GMT -6
I'll disagree with your argument on the range of a plane carrying a torpedo in a specific case. I have a TB that is M rated for Torpedo, yet the bomb load is only 800 lbs.
You're welcome to disagree, but you're missing the point again.
If you have a TB that is M rated for torpedo ,yet the bomb load is 800lbs, one good reason for it can be that it only has one bomb rack which can only load a 800lbs bomb. Doesn't mean that the plane can't take off with larger loads. There are literally dozens of instances of planes in history that could carry bombs of size limited by the rack carrying it, and not by the inherent power of the design to take off with more. The P-47 for instance began it's career as a fighter with no bomb capability, but in subsequent models it could carry a couple of 500 lb bombs (underwing racks), then three 500lb bombs (underwing+underfuselage rack), then 2x1000lb bombs (larger wing racks), etc.
There are literally dozens of instances like that of planes with plenty of power available which droppable ordinance was limited by the racks they carried.
If you by chance happened to choose a model with limited bomb size it doesn't mean the plane can't haul anything bigger. It means the rack it uses can only handle bombs that size. And before you ask, no, a bomb rack is not the same as the torpedo rack. It's perfectly possible that a plane could load a torpedo, but when forced to carry a bomb, if no better rack was provided, could only carry a bomb half it's weight.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 28, 2019 14:06:05 GMT -6
ramjb, Ahhh, I gotcha. That makes sense. I understand now. Great info ramjb. Thanks. So far, no one is defending NWS deciding to subtract torps AFTER a plane is Readied instead of when you click the Ready Strike or Launch Strike buttons. So I hope they change this as stated in my OP.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 28, 2019 15:55:08 GMT -6
ramjb , Ahhh, I gotcha. That makes sense. I understand now. Great info ramjb . Thanks. So far, no one is defending NWS deciding to subtract torps AFTER a plane is Readied instead of when you click the Ready Strike or Launch Strike buttons. So I hope they change this as stated in my OP. I'd recommend you edit the original post to clarify this stance, I wasn't sure what you meant exactly until I scrolled down later. Considering the earlier issue with torpedo being checked when you clicked "ready" but not refunded if you do not launch, the OP statement could easily cause misunderstanding. In any case, I think the current decision more had to do with being a relative easy fix from a coding perspective, since in the scenario you proposed the game had to account for these "loaded" torpedos, and if you ever decides to move planes from "ready" to "unready", properly refund these torps. The most optimal scenario is probably to track torpedo as stored/loaded/used so there is a clear indication of the state your torpedo count. Though to be honest even the current display doesn't bug me too much. It maybe a bit annoying if I want to split multiple squads and cant keep track of how many torp had actually been loaded. Ultimately I personally feel it is something that, if made clear to the players, wont really impact gameplay experience all that much.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 28, 2019 18:04:08 GMT -6
ramjb , Ahhh, I gotcha. That makes sense. I understand now. Great info ramjb . Thanks. So far, no one is defending NWS deciding to subtract torps AFTER a plane is Readied instead of when you click the Ready Strike or Launch Strike buttons. So I hope they change this as stated in my OP. It maybe a bit annoying if I want to split multiple squads and cant keep track of how many torp had actually been loaded. That's the point of my OP, which was already amended with a strikethrough at the time of your post. We shouldnt have to use pen and paper to keep track of minutia like that. That game already has a lot of micro. If the game did what I propose, there would be no ambiguity on knowing how many torps you had when you want to ready more planes. The current method is poor.
|
|
slew
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by slew on Jul 12, 2019 20:19:03 GMT -6
Then the ranges are off. Medium load has a range longer than Hvy, but the Torpedo, in the case of the USA Mk 13, is sometimes heavier than the Hvy bomb load. Also, after doing research, I read where the USA carriers carried 2 torps per plane PLUS 12 spares. Where are the twelve spares? We got shorted. First - "whe got shorted" no you didn't. The game doesn't implement national doctrines in torpedo storage, applies the same rules for everyone, and not everyone had "12 spares". Not to mention, USS Ranger carried no torpedoes, most of the CVEs didn't either, and I'm yet to see the Independence class storage (maybe someone can help here) but I highly doubt they had 2xtimes the avengers they carried+12. So even in the US we see fleet carriers without that standard of 2xTBs+12. But a lot of others carried less, and there were a good number (CVEs were the most numerous CVs of WWII) that carried no torpedoes at all (and once more, Ranger was a fleet CV, and Ranger as far as I remember didn't carry torpedoes). That in the US. And other navies didn't follow that standard. The game doesn't model the whole thing after the "best case ever seen" or the "navy that did it best" it averages it across every nation with same rules for everyone. So no, you didn't get shorted. As for the "ranges are off", once again no they are not. For most of the early years of naval aviation carrying a torp was, indeed, maxing out the ordinance capacity of a torpedo bomber, hence the "heavy" range makes sense. As time went by there were multiple planes able to carry far more weight than just that of one torpedo. For instance the Martin Mauler (an US TB that was produced in limited numbers because of the end of WWII) was expected to carry up to 6000lbs of external ordinance. Turned out that, in practice, that thing could haul more than 10000 pounds of ordinance. Load that thing up with one torpedo, that plane would certainly enjoy far more range that at full load. In game you get those powerful TBs pretty late in the career as aircraft technology advances with the years, and yes, them having "Medium range" makes quite a lot of sense. Same with medium bombers. A lot of naval attack torpedo carrying twin engined land based planes carrying just one torpedo were far from topping off their max ordinance loadout and would thus enjoy farther ranges than if they were loaded to the top with bombs, torps, or a mix of bombs and torpedoes. My apologies for the delayed response. I only check the boards sporadically. Everything you listed had torpedo stowage and regularly had a load stored. 1942 March 071701 ADMINOFF CTF 22 to COMFAIRDET AT NAS QUONSET PT, Info COMAIRFORLANT, RANGER, BUORD
Cancel my 061941. RANGER has received 18 torpedoes from NAS NORFOLK. Now has 30 13 Mod 1 Torpedoes on board. 1942 March 242011 BUAIR to BUSHIPS, BUORD
Based on permissible weight considerations and on premise ten loads per plane as outlined in COMAIRBATFOR conference letter serial 0977 the following new allowance for RANGER is recommended: #100 bomb = 576 #500 bomb = 264 #1000 bomb = 177 mk.17 depth = 100 mk.13 torp = 30 mk.24 smoke = 24 Further recommend stowage for 200 incendiary bombs be provided but that bombs be stored at advance base. Above assumes 18 VF, 31 VSB, and 9 VT aircraft carried by RANGER. Despatch action requested. To RANGER and NAVY YARD NORFOLK by hand. COMAIRLANT originator. 1944 November 24, Commanding Officer, PRINCETON, to Secretary of the Navy
I. General Narrative: (b) On 23 October 1944, information from submarine and air search contacts that elements of the Japanese Fleet were in the Philippines, prompted orders for the Task Group to proceed over night to the vicinity of latitude 15°00'N, longitude 123°30'E, (150 miles, bearing 078°T from Manila). From that point searches were launched at dawn, on 24 October, by other ships in the formation, while patrols were assumed by the LANGLEY and PRINCETON. Enemy snooper aircraft began approaching the formation prior to dawn, and later large groups were detected closing, which caused the launching of additional combat air patrols. Two large air engagements ensued between 0750 and 0845. At 0938, while the PRINCETON was recovering her combat air patrols, a lone enemy divebomber (Judy) attacked the ship, scoring a direct hit and starting a serious fire in the hangar which resulted in a series of major explosions there between 1002 and 1020. In spite of excellent assistance from accompanying vessels, the fires reached the torpedo stowage, immediately aft of the hangar. In this space there were stowed charged torpedoes (minus war-heads) and an overload of bombs which could not be accommodated in the magazines. A terrific explosion from this space blew the stern off the ship at 1523, after which she was abandoned. She was destroyed by torpedoes from the U.S.S. RENO, and sank almost instantly at 1750. 1945 May 290903 (green) CINCPOA ADV to CNO Info COMAIRPAC, COMSERVPAC, COMFAIRWESTCOAST, CINCPAC PEARL
Ur 241929 current and prospective enemy tactics dictate that we cease practice of keeping warheads in ready service condition in hangars or elevator pits. Accordingly consider it essential that magazine stowage for warheads be provided. Para. However in the case of carriers engaged in “escort and support operations” which is taken to mean CVEs, the possibility of finding suitable torpedo targets does not justify the danger and displacement of other armament which are involved in the carrying of torpedoes on board. Accordingly concur in proposal to remove torpedoes from these ships. 1945 June 070725 (green) CINCPAC ADV to COMAIRPAC Info CNO, COMSERVPAC, CINCPAC PEARL, COMFAIRWEST, COMESCARPAC, COM3RDFLT, COMMARIANAS, COMSERVRON TEN, COMAIRPACSUBCOMFORD.
CNO 051430. Proceed with removal of all torpedoes from all CVE type carriers. Say what you will about the TBD and the Mark 13 aerial torpedo by 1942 USN liked to have torpedoes in all its carriers.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jul 14, 2019 13:28:54 GMT -6
The current torpedo allocation system in RTW2 is actually quite generous from an operational standpoint. RTW2 lets you carry as many TBs as you want and gives you the ability to drastically change the number of torpedo bombers (and torpedoes carried) within a single month and with no additional costs. That is far more month to month flexibility than was available historically.
Historically, the storage capability that was built into the carrier served as a brake on the number of TBs that could be carried. You could not just add additional torpedo bombers and expect to operate them effectively. The Enterprise as built could certainly embark 60 torpedo bombers but would not have been able to provide torpedoes for even one torpedo strike for that number of bombers. To effectively operate that number of torpedo bombers she would have to undergo fairly major modifications. The torpedo magazine would have to be modified (and we know the amount of time a magazine expansion currently takes in RTW2). Then there is the issue of providing the additional ordnance elevators and other supporting mechanisms and trained crew required to efficiently manage the greatly expanded torpedo arming needs. There's a big difference between the infrastructure required to efficiently arm 16 TBs and that required to arm 48 TBs with torpedoes. It could have been done but all of those changes would take quite some time and then some amount of training. However you designed the carrier you would have been fairly locked into the design choice you made, which would tend to dictate the number of torpedo bombers you could operate.
It would be nice to see this system changed in RTW2 by making torpedo storage a part of the carrier design process. The player would then have to make the same hard choices about torpedo storage and the resulting impact on size of the torpedo bomber air group that designers had to make historically. And he'd have to live with those choices.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jul 15, 2019 10:51:59 GMT -6
<snip> It would be nice to see this system changed in RTW2 by making torpedo storage a part of the carrier design process. The player would then have to make the same hard choices about torpedo storage and the resulting impact on size of the torpedo bomber air group that designers had to make historically. And he'd have to live with those choices. I agree with you. I could imagine it like a second "rounds per gun" field in design. However, this is just my personal opinion but I'd say there are a lot of issues which should take priority over this. For one, I think it would break savegames (because ship design files would change, to include this entry).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 15, 2019 10:58:04 GMT -6
<snip> It would be nice to see this system changed in RTW2 by making torpedo storage a part of the carrier design process. The player would then have to make the same hard choices about torpedo storage and the resulting impact on size of the torpedo bomber air group that designers had to make historically. And he'd have to live with those choices. I agree with you. I could imagine it like a second "rounds per gun" field in design. However, this is just my personal opinion but I'd say there are a lot of issues which should take priority over this. For one, I think it would break savegames (because ship design files would change, to include this entry).
It depedns how it is designed. It could be that if no information is find in design file, save is updated by default value which is eg. 2xnumber of torpedo bombers.
And I completely agree that there a lot of another things which are much higher priority.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 15, 2019 12:28:36 GMT -6
What if the ship has been stripped of its air group, because it's peacetime? What if the Glorious has 10 TB embarked but the Courageous has 30, despite being the same class? I like the inclusion of magazine size in principle, but it's not that easy to transition it. Seems to me like you'd just have to break saves, or include a "Pre-1.06 save" flag in the savegame files somewhere to have it use the current rules instead.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 15, 2019 12:37:31 GMT -6
What if the ship has been stripped of its air group, because it's peacetime? What if the Glorious has 10 TB embarked but the Courageous has 30, despite being the same class? I like the inclusion of magazine size in principle, but it's not that easy to transition it. Seems to me like you'd just have to break saves, or include a "Pre-1.06 save" flag in the savegame files somewhere to have it use TVthe current rules instead. Eg. 25 % of capacity as torpedo bombers. With small research with real history data, there can be more accurate %. To allow save compatibility I think some simplification as this is easily acceptable. There is no need of flag, just check if variable exist.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jul 15, 2019 13:05:14 GMT -6
Actually, I suppose you'd just figure out what the break-even point is. If a plane is 100 tons right now, and the new rule is 80 tons per plane and 20 tons per torpedo, and you have a 10,000-ton air wing, you use the 2000 tons saved by the change to add 2000 tons of torps.
|
|