|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2019 15:53:37 GMT -6
Test facility.....shooting range! Thats a good idea. Oh I need to read Hara's book, its in my stack, I heard the translation was bonked referring to homing torpedoes instead of oxygen propelled, not sure if thats true hut if itis wow thats not right! Good one oldpop! Christian the letters down the first column A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, are not the nation those are just the torpedo model in the game, the type. No country name begins, with C, D, E so I dont think thats data thats just indicative of the model. The letters in the N column are the nation. Notice J, F, G, B, this is why I think the US uses someone elses torp. Italian and AH as well. Considering that the USN bought the rights to both Whitehead and Schwarzkopf torpedoes they all start with pretty similar stats in 1900 maybe the game does it that way, I dont know I am a bit stumped the numbers look good for speed in kts but the ranges/runtimes seem incongrous, yer both right. Now i went in and tried to change the tech tree it reads changed but changes nothing in game afaik. The torps still do 38/5000 on high speed, i had upped it to 48 to 8000 sine I was surenI would see a difference if it worked, no or I am a worse JAFO than I thought. Ok back to the depths. Good luck gents, if I come up with anything useful it may be utter garbage, I will share. Thanks be well guys. Rh is definitely run high and i think its in seconds, could be range high as well. But thats the range or time it runs at high speed. Likewise for RL. As for the type 93 like oldpop was also saying and better than I was, darn nice example there, they wer not the super weapon they have come to be thiught of. 23 allied ships were sunk by Long Lances and 3 Japanese ships by accident not counting the ones that cooked off and sank the ship carrying them. Over 1000 long lances were launched, heck at Java Sea 164 torpedoes in 30+ launches only 3 ships sunk. So not really as good as its reputation. In my digital version of the book, Hara does refer to the "oxygen torpedoes, pride of the Imperial Navy...". There are about 13 other references to the oxygen torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2019 18:09:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 25, 2019 3:06:48 GMT -6
Test facility.....shooting range! Thats a good idea. Oh I need to read Hara's book, its in my stack, I heard the translation was bonked referring to homing torpedoes instead of oxygen propelled, not sure if thats true hut if itis wow thats not right! Good one oldpop! Christian the letters down the first column A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, are not the nation those are just the torpedo model in the game, the type. No country name begins, with C, D, E so I dont think thats data thats just indicative of the model. The letters in the N column are the nation. Notice J, F, G, B, this is why I think the US uses someone elses torp. Italian and AH as well. Considering that the USN bought the rights to both Whitehead and Schwarzkopf torpedoes they all start with pretty similar stats in 1900 maybe the game does it that way, I dont know I am a bit stumped the numbers look good for speed in kts but the ranges/runtimes seem incongrous, yer both right. Now i went in and tried to change the tech tree it reads changed but changes nothing in game afaik. The torps still do 38/5000 on high speed, i had upped it to 48 to 8000 sine I was surenI would see a difference if it worked, no or I am a worse JAFO than I thought. Ok back to the depths. Good luck gents, if I come up with anything useful it may be utter garbage, I will share. Thanks be well guys. Rh is definitely run high and i think its in seconds, could be range high as well. But thats the range or time it runs at high speed. Likewise for RL. As for the type 93 like oldpop was also saying and better than I was, darn nice example there, they wer not the super weapon they have come to be thiught of. 23 allied ships were sunk by Long Lances and 3 Japanese ships by accident not counting the ones that cooked off and sank the ship carrying them. Over 1000 long lances were launched, heck at Java Sea 164 torpedoes in 30+ launches only 3 ships sunk. So not really as good as its reputation. do keep in mind hitrate is determined by how many hit not how many sink thus 23 ships sunk does not neccesarily mean 23 hits many ships could have taken more than 1 torpedo to sink and some might have survived being hit by torpedoes
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Sept 25, 2019 4:45:47 GMT -6
Respectfully, if we are arguing about "hit ratio", then the discussion already steered way off-course. In-game I always interpreted "oxygen torpedo" as not a "superweapon", not "the Type 93", not larger or different warhead, and not anything with a special guidance system - but a different kind of propulsion. This is also what the manual states, mind you.
As such, in my mind, when you tick in-game the checkbox, I would love to see again, exactly what the manual states: "Oxygen fuelled torpedoes give considerably better torpedo performance at the risk of more devastating torpedo explosions if torpedo tubes are hit" - So, let's say, just for the sake of argument, 150% more range at the "usual" speeds, or significantly more speed at the "standard" ranges (before the nitpicking begins, the exact values almost don't matter as long as the differences are visibly present). In turn, I would not mind torpedo hits outright exploding even large destroyers, or severely mauling even heavy cruisers. What I'd love to see is a meaningful choice, which the tech now for all intents and purposes does not seem to be. Hell, my experience doesn't have to mean much in the grand scale of things, but I have yet to witness even the "more devastating explosions when tubes are hit" once.
As it stands now, the tech sounds like an immensely interesting and curious choice, but for me right now it feels borderline pointless both in the pro- and contra-sense. Not dissimilarly by the way for example to the diving shells tech, which in my - again: limited - experience also feels more like a placebo, however I am far more lenient in that case as the differrence in reality arguably wasn't massively spectacular either. However, I can't excuse oxygen fuelled torps in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Sept 26, 2019 1:49:20 GMT -6
Respectfully, if we are arguing about "hit ratio", then the discussion already steered way off-course. In-game I always interpreted "oxygen torpedo" as not a "superweapon", not "the Type 93", not larger or different warhead, and not anything with a special guidance system - but a different kind of propulsion. This is also what the manual states, mind you.
As such, in my mind, when you tick in-game the checkbox, I would love to see again, exactly what the manual states: "Oxygen fuelled torpedoes give considerably better torpedo performance at the risk of more devastating torpedo explosions if torpedo tubes are hit" - So, let's say, just for the sake of argument, 150% more range at the "usual" speeds, or significantly more speed at the "standard" ranges (before the nitpicking begins, the exact values almost don't matter as long as the differences are visibly present). In turn, I would not mind torpedo hits outright exploding even large destroyers, or severely mauling even heavy cruisers. What I'd love to see is a meaningful choice, which the tech now for all intents and purposes does not seem to be. Hell, my experience doesn't have to mean much in the grand scale of things, but I have yet to witness even the "more devastating explosions when tubes are hit" once.
As it stands now, the tech sounds like an immensely interesting and curious choice, but for me right now it feels borderline pointless both in the pro- and contra-sense. Not dissimilarly by the way for example to the diving shells tech, which in my - again: limited - experience also feels more like a placebo, however I am far more lenient in that case as the differrence in reality arguably wasn't massively spectacular either. However, I can't excuse oxygen fuelled torps in the same way. i feel the EXACT SAME WAY ive had diving shells cause major hits to enemy ships TWICE in all of 5 games where i ticked it the fastest i could and played from 1900 to 1970 both hits were on destroyers and caused magazine explosions oxygen torpedoes as far as i see in game change absolutely nothing there is no new gameplay features that i have witnessed my torpedoes have never blown up once they havent been a detriment in any way ive never lost a destroyer to oxygen torpedo explosions in addition to that there is almost no visible range diffrence and no other performance diffrence in short the diving shell and oxy torpedo checkboxes seem totally useless i could play a game as the same country twice once with and once without the 2 things on and it would feel EXACTLY the same in combat il be running range damage and speed tests with the excercise function later today
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Sept 28, 2019 8:59:05 GMT -6
I have had cook offs from my oxytorps being hit at least twice, lost a DD and crippled a CL. I have had torpedo hit induced magazine explosions vs at least 2 enemy DD, it can be hard to tell since they are getting killed by shells as well.
Well 23 ships sunk for over 1500 launched still is not a jubilant statistic. Chop it and count it any way you like, i was providing the breakdown, I really have no agenda or preference. From their reputation I would have thought it was 230 ships but no its just inflated, USS Hornet was not a combat kill, she was already being scuttled and was abandoned, plus count in 5 friendly transports and a minesweeper they killed for the allies. Not one BB was even nicked by one which was their raison de etre, that to me shows they coulda just used normal cheaper lighter torpedoes and got the same results probably, used all the resources on their aviation, and escort branches instead. Their speed was more useful than their range, they were very fast on short range setting, i believe the next fastest ASuW torp in service during the war was Italian?
Yeah Akossjoccik has a very valid observation I already mentioned, torpedoes in game are not type 93 equivalent, none of them are 24 inch weapons, none of em appear to go as fast, as far or have nearly the warhead. They also dont seem to cook off as often. I had a torp tube hit this morning and No cook off.
I pretty much gave up messing with torpedoes, I think they work about As well asnthey can and should. However I would like to see mor ability to improve them, along the lines of a Type 93 faster at standard range or farther at slower speed, even ifnthey do miss at extreme ranges the really long range torpedo spread is still cool even if it was actually ineffective.
So it would be kinda cool if we could design our own torpedoes....Customized with options. Options would cause tradeoffs in performance obviously. For example= pick one from each column....
Size= light 18 inch, medium 21 inch or heavy 24 inch. Propulsion= steam, electric or Oxygen. Range= short, med or long with corresponding setting variations to speed depending on propulsion. Warhead= standard, light which would give an increase in speed or range or both, or heavy which will give a recuction in speed or range or both. Special options/guidance= pattern runner, wake follower, acoustic homing, wire guidance, ......these are really not used on ASuW torps in ww2., but probably could have been.
However I doubt the devs wanna polish the turd on torpedoes that much. Lol have a great weekend guys!
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 5, 2019 8:23:56 GMT -6
also literally no one used smaller than 53.3 cm torpedoes (21") in ww2 except for the germans using a smaller airborne torpedo (which was garbage) and the soviets using a 450mm torpedo for their torpedo bombers and for one single type of destroyer THE ONLY nation to use smaller than 53.3 cm torpedoes on ships was russia which used them on a single destroyer Except that many nations did use sub-21" torpedoes. Excluding classes and nations not covered by the scope of the game:: Britain used 18" aerial torpedoes for the first half of the war The old French dreadnoughts Courbet and Paris retained their 18" torpedo tubes The German cruiser Emden used 19.7" torpedoes Italy built some small destroyers (rated as Torpedo Boats) in the interwar years which mounted 18" tubes The Russian dreadnoughts Gangut and Sevastapol retained their 18" tubes, as did some old destroyers and a new class of small destroyers (rated as Torpedo Boats). Japan's Type-91 aerial torpedo was a 17.7" weapon (later sold to Germany) But that digresses from the thread. The oxygen fuelled torpedo should be far more effective in terms of range and speed than it appears to be at the moment albeit with increased risk of powerful detonation should the tubes be hit. Apparently it was also harder to spot on the approach, so maybe it should also have an avoidance penalty?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Nov 5, 2019 11:49:45 GMT -6
also literally no one used smaller than 53.3 cm torpedoes (21") in ww2 except for the germans using a smaller airborne torpedo (which was garbage) and the soviets using a 450mm torpedo for their torpedo bombers and for one single type of destroyer THE ONLY nation to use smaller than 53.3 cm torpedoes on ships was russia which used them on a single destroyer Except that many nations did use sub-21" torpedoes. Excluding classes and nations not covered by the scope of the game:: Britain used 18" aerial torpedoes for the first half of the war The old French dreadnoughts Courbet and Paris retained their 18" torpedo tubes The German cruiser Emden used 19.7" torpedoes Italy built some small destroyers (rated as Torpedo Boats) in the interwar years which mounted 18" tubes The Russian dreadnoughts Gangut and Sevastapol retained their 18" tubes, as did some old destroyers and a new class of small destroyers (rated as Torpedo Boats). Japan's Type-91 aerial torpedo was a 17.7" weapon (later sold to Germany) But that digresses from the thread. The oxygen fuelled torpedo should be far more effective in terms of range and speed than it appears to be at the moment albeit with increased risk of powerful detonation should the tubes be hit. Apparently it was also harder to spot on the approach, so maybe it should also have an avoidance penalty? i did mention surface torpedoes and not torpedoes in general i also mentioned ww2 i cant find any german 19.7 inch torpedo rest is either airborne torpedoes or pre ww2 torpedoes
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 5, 2019 13:06:46 GMT -6
The mentioned Emden was built with 500mm tubes (19.7 in, sometimes rounded to 20), but these were replaced with 533mm (21 inch) tubes in 1934.
There were some 45cm (17.7 inch) Italian torpedoes fired from submarines (also from 21 inch tubes, after using some sort of adapter) and motor torpedo boats. There was also a Russian 45-36N 450mm torpedo fired from older desteroyers. From what I know british MTBs also used an 18 inch torpedo.
|
|
|
Post by elouda on Nov 5, 2019 18:16:28 GMT -6
Pretty sure the torp data file is unused and a holdover from SAI. In RTW1 to edit the parameters for the torpedoes you had to edit the .exe, so I'm guessing all the performance and warhead data is also in the .exe for RTW2. Would be nice if it could be externalized like the gun penetration and engine data is.
The numbers in the ResearchAreas file are purely description, like above if you actually want to edit the range/speed its most likely in the .exe like in RTW1, and thus not doable for RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Nov 6, 2019 5:11:43 GMT -6
Pretty sure the torp data file is unused and a holdover from SAI. In RTW1 to edit the parameters for the torpedoes you had to edit the .exe, so I'm guessing all the performance and warhead data is also in the .exe for RTW2. Would be nice if it could be externalized like the gun penetration and engine data is. The numbers in the ResearchAreas file are purely description, like above if you actually want to edit the range/speed its most likely in the .exe like in RTW1, and thus not doable for RTW2. that is quite dissapointing wish we could have the ability to edit torpedoes
|
|