|
Post by zabieru on Jun 24, 2019 23:37:22 GMT -6
What does this mean, exactly? Is this per scenario, meaning that TBs can only make a maximum of two sorties (not counting ones where they don't find a target, of course)? Or can planes with heavy bomb loads carry more than one torpedo? (I would have guessed not if you'd asked me yesterday, but it would make sense in some cases... Especially since I've seen flying boats and medium bombers with an L in the torpedo column.)
If it's per scenario, meaning torpedo bombers can only be used twice per battle... Well, guess I'll need to make sure I don't put TBs on airbases anymore.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 25, 2019 0:00:14 GMT -6
I believe it means that each base and carrier carries 2 fish for each TB based there for a scenario...so, for example if you have 32 TBs on a carrier, the carrier will have 64 torps available for a battle to arm its aircraft - once you use those 64 torps you are out of fish for that carrier (for that battle). This goes for each carrier and base involved in a scenario.
The reason for this is that our research shows that carriers (and bases) typically had (on the average) ready stocks of approx 2 torps / per each aircraft stationed on board immediately available for use, hence the limit.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 25, 2019 0:03:09 GMT -6
Will TBs switch to bombs automatically when out of torps?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 25, 2019 0:06:32 GMT -6
Will TBs switch to bombs automatically when out of torps? I believe that is the case, but Fredrik W would need to confirm that to be certain.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 25, 2019 0:07:26 GMT -6
Nice touch, I certainly did think this limit was needed. Further question, in a base where there are medium bombers with torpedo capability, this limit will account for them too? or only TBs?. Because that could be some serious problem, having torpedo-capable Medium Bombers in a base where no TBs are based....and have them use no torpedoes at all when they are supposed to be able to .
|
|
|
Post by zabieru on Jun 25, 2019 0:09:22 GMT -6
Thanks for the quick reply! (Still seems like there's a bit of a balance issue there, though. How many 1600lb bombs per dive bomber in the ol' ready stocks? Then again, I tend to find TBs more effective, so maybe it balances out. Some sort of target selection might be nice, though: if I've only got two fish for the whole battle and I know there are capital ships out there, the tendency of aircraft to cut loose on whatever they run into becomes a bit more obnoxious when they're wasting half their torp load for the battle instead of just costing some time.)
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 25, 2019 0:10:32 GMT -6
Nice touch, I certainly did think this limit was needed. Further question, in a base where there are medium bombers with torpedo capability, this limit will account for them too? or only TBs?. Because that could be some serious problem, having torpedo-capable Medium Bombers in a base where no TBs are based....and have them use no torpedoes at all when they are supposed to be able to . I would think if it can carry torps then it would count towards the number of fish available, but again Fredrik would need to verify that...I only have limited info on this change right now, sorry.
There are far more bombs, in general, available than torps on a carrier and a base (bombs were far, far cheaper than torpedoes) so those have not been limited. Now, it might make sense to slightly limit the # of large AP bombs, but that would be for future consideration.
|
|
|
Post by zabieru on Jun 25, 2019 0:23:30 GMT -6
There are far more bombs, in general, available than torps on a carrier and a base (bombs were far, far cheaper than torpedoes) so those have not been limited. Now, it might make sense to slightly limit the # of large AP bombs, but that would be for future consideration.
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 25, 2019 1:05:43 GMT -6
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick. What, you don't love it when your DDs spend all their torpedoes aiming for an enemy DD?!
|
|
|
Post by zabieru on Jun 25, 2019 1:14:39 GMT -6
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick. What, you don't love it when your DDs spend all their torpedoes aiming for an enemy DD?! Y'know, I'd be fine with that just as long as they watched the damn backdrop and waited until the misses weren't gonna hit my cruiser division coming up on the other side... At least aiming for enemy DDs has a decent shot at disrupting their own torpedo run and keeping them in secondary range, right? Plus, a live enemy DD is better than what my destroyer captains REALLY like to use those torps for: anything they pass that's already dead in the water and sinking.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 25, 2019 1:16:04 GMT -6
Couldn't there be an option to increase the reserves for an additional maintenance cost? I would imagine that a navy relying solely on torpedo bombers would be inclined to pay for more of them.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jun 25, 2019 1:54:15 GMT -6
Just to make things clear. The limit is 2 torpedoes per torpedo capable plane (TB and in some cases MB). This is pretty close to historical limits, in fact it might be generous for land bases.
I agree it would be desirable to have a limit on heavy AP bombs as well, but torpedoes were a much easier case to handle. We will see about bombs later. One cannot simulate everything in a game.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 25, 2019 2:17:50 GMT -6
There are far more bombs, in general, available than torps on a carrier and a base (bombs were far, far cheaper than torpedoes) so those have not been limited. Now, it might make sense to slightly limit the # of large AP bombs, but that would be for future consideration.
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick. Uhhhhh that's up to you to send the planes with the correct kind of ordinance from the carrier. Once it's in flight a plane can't say "oops, this KE I'm seeing will be hard to hit with the torpedo I'm carrying so I'm going to magically switch it with a bomb". Just fly it from your carrier with bombs instead. As for "target selection", I do think the AI already attacks biggest ships first. Of course doesn't mean they always do, but there's the fact that pilots often misidentified ships during real attacks and did runs on low value ships next to literally invaluable assets (during Pearl Harbor you'll be surprised how much ordinance the Japanese dropped on USS Utah, which was worthless, instead of dropping it on battleship row, for instance) so having your squadrons going for the wrong kind of ship is part of the "experience", so to speak .
|
|
|
Post by zabieru on Jun 25, 2019 2:52:41 GMT -6
Yeah, on reflection I like this change more than I did at first. I would still love to see something akin to the ammo doctrine options, though, to avoid those "dumped all my ordnance on TR Merchant 0 and KE Patrol Boat-class" moments. Just something simple like "Torpedo Bombers will launch against _____ and larger" would do the trick. Uhhhhh that's up to you to send the planes with the correct kind of ordinance from the carrier. Once it's in flight a plane can't say "oops, this KE I'm seeing will be hard to hit with the torpedo I'm carrying so I'm going to magically switch it with a bomb". Just fly it from your carrier with bombs instead. As for "target selection", I do think the AI already attacks biggest ships first. Of course doesn't mean they always do, but there's the fact that pilots often misidentified ships during real attacks and did runs on low value ships next to literally invaluable assets (during Pearl Harbor you'll be surprised how much ordinance the Japanese dropped on USS Utah, which was worthless, instead of dropping it on battleship row, for instance) so having your squadrons going for the wrong kind of ship is part of the "experience", so to speak . To be clear, what I'm suggesting is not "TB spots KE, looks around for bigger target, doesn't see it, casts Lvl 3 Remote Rearm and switches to bombs" but simply "TBs carrying torpedoes will not attack targets they identify as smaller than XX."
And yes, the AI does seem to try and target bigger ships (it's definitely not perfect, but this is fine: if I send a sortie against a group of 3 DD, 2 CA, and 1 CV, I do expect some planes to make runs at each of those ships.) The game already appears to handle misidentifications, so if I set the torp limit to BC/BB/CV and my squadron spots a CA they think looks awfully battle-ish, they should try and sink her.
The scenario I have an issue with is when your sortie runs into something tiny on its way to the target and decides to blow it out of the water. THAT seems like one where your pilots ought to know better. (And, for that matter, if they get to the target and there's nothing there, or only a destroyer, same deal.)
Really it's less "I don't want to see anything smaller than XX with an aircraft torpedo hole in it" so much as "I don't want to see torpedo bombers making an attack run unless there's something bigger than XX in the area." As you say, fog of war and all. I have no issue with any of that. But very few pilots came back to the ol' Kido Butai bragging about how they were on their way to the navy base but they saw this police boat so they blew it up instead, and I can't imagine they'd have had long careers if they had. There's a difference between hitting the wrong battleship-shaped object in the middle of a major naval installation, and turning back early because there was this coast guard cutter and it was just SO JUICY, sir, SO JUICY AND IT NEEDED MY TORP LOVE.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 25, 2019 3:49:52 GMT -6
Uhhhhh that's up to you to send the planes with the correct kind of ordinance from the carrier. Once it's in flight a plane can't say "oops, this KE I'm seeing will be hard to hit with the torpedo I'm carrying so I'm going to magically switch it with a bomb". Just fly it from your carrier with bombs instead. As for "target selection", I do think the AI already attacks biggest ships first. Of course doesn't mean they always do, but there's the fact that pilots often misidentified ships during real attacks and did runs on low value ships next to literally invaluable assets (during Pearl Harbor you'll be surprised how much ordinance the Japanese dropped on USS Utah, which was worthless, instead of dropping it on battleship row, for instance) so having your squadrons going for the wrong kind of ship is part of the "experience", so to speak . To be clear, what I'm suggesting is not "TB spots KE, looks around for bigger target, doesn't see it, casts Lvl 3 Remote Rearm and switches to bombs" but simply "TBs carrying torpedoes will not attack targets they identify as smaller than XX."
And yes, the AI does seem to try and target bigger ships (it's definitely not perfect, but this is fine: if I send a sortie against a group of 3 DD, 2 CA, and 1 CV, I do expect some planes to make runs at each of those ships.) The game already appears to handle misidentifications, so if I set the torp limit to BC/BB/CV and my squadron spots a CA they think looks awfully battle-ish, they should try and sink her.
The scenario I have an issue with is when your sortie runs into something tiny on its way to the target and decides to blow it out of the water. THAT seems like one where your pilots ought to know better. (And, for that matter, if they get to the target and there's nothing there, or only a destroyer, same deal.)
Really it's less "I don't want to see anything smaller than XX with an aircraft torpedo hole in it" so much as "I don't want to see torpedo bombers making an attack run unless there's something bigger than XX in the area." As you say, fog of war and all. I have no issue with any of that. But very few pilots came back to the ol' Kido Butai bragging about how they were on their way to the navy base but they saw this police boat so they blew it up instead, and I can't imagine they'd have had long careers if they had. There's a difference between hitting the wrong battleship-shaped object in the middle of a major naval installation, and turning back early because there was this coast guard cutter and it was just SO JUICY, sir, SO JUICY AND IT NEEDED MY TORP LOVE.
Woul you like to send your torpedo bombers with torpedoes back to land on carrier? :-))
You really like your torpedoes more than your carrier. :-) Landing is always dangerous and anything can happen. It is enough that plane itself has flammables.
|
|