Hello all!

I have had some thoughts on torpedos. Torpedos were large, fragile, perishable and expensive peices of armament. In fact torpedos cost more than light artillery peices(150mm) or aircraft and production was very specialized. This is why no nation uses TBs as their sole form of defense, they are too costly! I believe it would be a good idea to track them separately with relatively high costs(as we do with Mines).

In the game War in the Pacific great problems were introduced due to the simplified supply system. The Japanese had the premier Torpedo bombers in 1941, single and twin engined, available in the hundreds. In game these would be used to cut off entire portions of the pacific. Anything crossing there path had a good chance of being sunk. The problem is that in RL they only built a few thousand torpedo of all kinds during the war, and the Long Lance especially was maintenence heavy and heavy in need of trained mechanic personnel. The Japanese never had many on hand at the front and could not even maintain the several dozen kept on hand in the carriers.

The solution to the many complaints was to make torpedos a seperate unit for supply purposes. This came out in the Admirals Edition version of the game. Along with many other changes it has made a great game fantastic in its relative strategic realism.

The prominance of the torpedo in Navalism has bothered me for some time. Noticing the great numbers of MTBs in Logis Naval OOB caused great concern. 170 20ton boats armed with 2 torps each for a cost of only $6.8 and 3.4BP. I am not sure how they are being modeled but I am concerned. the problem MTBs bring up in particular were partialy brought up in 1908 with DFs turbinas. A navy with no MTBS suddenly was building dozens on an island (Hainan?)with little infrastructure. MTBs require highpower engines and highly trained crews, both are rare things and take time to build-especially in this timeframe). None of this was taken into account.

Now that Aircraft and Subs are coming in play I fear a bad situation will be made worse.

As we have been tracking mines separately I really feel that torpedos desrve the same. Perhaps $1 per 50 or 100? Tech level and size would need to be noted. As 21" Destroyer Torps cannot be used by Aircraft and torpedo bought with 1910 tech are not the same monster as 1918 tech Torpedos.

Quote from: Blooded on November 30, 2010, 11:32:48 AM
Hello all!

I have had some thoughts on torpedos. Torpedos were large, fragile, perishable and expensive peices of armament. In fact torpedos cost more than light artillery peices(150mm) or aircraft and production was very specialized. This is why no nation uses TBs as their sole form of defense, they are too costly! I believe it would be a good idea to track them separately with relatively high costs(as we do with Mines).

That depends on the torpedo and who made it. The Nordenfelts were awful. The Schwarzkopfs (German fish) were like the Bliss Leavitts and Silufurcos robust and deadly, the Whiteheads were somewhere in between.  

QuoteIn the game War in the Pacific great problems were introduced due to the simplified supply system. The Japanese had the premier Torpedo bombers in 1941, single and twin engined, available in the hundreds. In game these would be used to cut off entire portions of the pacific. Anything crossing there path had a good chance of being sunk. The problem is that in RL they only built a few thousand torpedo of all kinds during the war, and the Long Lance especially was maintenence heavy and heavy in need of trained mechanic personnel. The Japanese never had many on hand at the front and could not even maintain the several dozen kept on hand in the carriers.

Correct as reported Hyper-war in real history. This along with superior designed Japanese naval shells was a major US war worry.

However-the sheer technical superiority of the few torpedoes they had has to be represented somehow?  

QuoteThe solution to the many complaints was to make torpedos a seperate unit for supply purposes. This came out in the Admirals Edition version of the game. Along with many other changes it has made a great game fantastic in its relative strategic realism.

Makes sense, as long as there is a 'national qualifier' Not all torpedo makers were equal.

An example of Nverse breakdown to 1919 using RTL template.

Excellent
Italy
DKB
Japan
Holland
Good
CSA
UNK
ESC (Danes and Germans, Swedish torpedoes were terrible)
Terrible
Everyone else.

QuoteThe prominence of the torpedo in Navalism has bothered me for some time. Noticing the great numbers of MTBs in Logis Naval OOB caused great concern. 170 20ton boats armed with 2 torps each for a cost of only $6.8 and 3.4BP. I am not sure how they are being modeled but I am concerned. the problem MTBs bring up in particular were partialy brought up in 1908 with DFs turbinas. A navy with no MTBS suddenly was building dozens on an island (Hainan?)with little infrastructure. MTBs require highpower engines and highly trained crews, both are rare things and take time to build-especially in this timeframe). None of this was taken into account.

That was of concern to me too, which is why I devoted such money to the PT boat

QuoteNow that Aircraft and Subs are coming in play I fear a bad situation will be made worse.

I foresee it.

QuoteAs we have been tracking mines separately I really feel that torpedos deserve the same. Perhaps $1 per 50 or 100? Tech level and size would need to be noted. As 21" Destroyer Torps cannot be used by Aircraft and torpedo bought with 1910 tech are not the same monster as 1918 tech Torpedos.

Again agreed.

As the inheritor of Logi's navy, I agree entirely with the idea of making torpedoes cost money.

Quote from: damocles on November 30, 2010, 01:41:47 PM

An example of Nverse breakdown to 1919 using RTL template.

Excellent
Italy
DKB
Japan
Holland
Good
CSA
UNK
ESC (Danes and Germans, Swedish torpedoes were terrible)
Terrible
Everyone else.

Absolutely not. If I have paid to keep my torpedo tech at the top of the line, I expect it to be at the top of the line. Nationality's, due to the false geography of the N-verse, are unappliable, and frankly, I won't accept my torpedoes being "terrible"

Quote from: TexanCowboy on November 30, 2010, 02:04:45 PM

Quote from: damocles on November 30, 2010, 01:41:47 PM

An example of Nverse breakdown to 1919 using RTL template.

Excellent
Italy
DKB
Japan
Holland
Good
CSA
UNK
ESC (Danes and Germans, Swedish torpedoes were terrible)
Terrible
Everyone else.

Absolutely not. If I have paid to keep my torpedo tech at the top of the line, I expect it to be at the top of the line. Nationality's, due to the false geography of the N-verse, are unappliable, and frankly, I won't accept my torpedoes being "terrible"

Its an example based on real history. The modifiers could be moderator rolled. What you get in that case would be Nverse 'history'.

US torpedoes after 1919 until 1956 were simply AWFUL the worst in the world.  

Dutch torpedoes were Schwartzkopfs, which were superb until after WW I. Then the Germans made their own in their government factory (like the US) and look what happened to them? Holland had to switch to Whiteheads: the quality suddenly dropped to mediocre.

If you stick to a simple 1d6 roll in a five year block (how long it usually takes to bring new torpedo tech on line.)
1d6 1-2 Excellent +1
1d6 3-4 Good       0
1d6 5-6 Poor       -1    

Could turn out that you get excellent torpedoes(*1920-1925) or clunkers.

Tech inequality of quality is a provable fact of life. Wars are based on that fact.
 

Quote from: Laertes on November 30, 2010, 02:03:28 PM
As the inheritor of Logi's navy, I agree entirely with the idea of making torpedoes cost money.

Well we dont know how much of that navy is left, or will be at the end of things.

Quote from: TexanCowboy on November 30, 2010, 02:04:45 PM

Quote from: damocles on November 30, 2010, 01:41:47 PM

An example of Nverse breakdown to 1919 using RTL template.

Excellent
Italy
DKB
Japan
Holland
Good
CSA
UNK
ESC (Danes and Germans, Swedish torpedoes were terrible)
Terrible
Everyone else.

Absolutely not. If I have paid to keep my torpedo tech at the top of the line, I expect it to be at the top of the line. Nationality's, due to the false geography of the N-verse, are unappliable, and frankly, I won't accept my torpedoes being "terrible"

Im in agreement with this, the tech level should govern torps, not a preseaved geographic bias. There would be some difference between nations, but I dont see this taken into account anywhere else in the rules regarding technological items such as planes, shells, mines, tanks and other things.

Quote from: damocles on November 30, 2010, 02:26:47 PM

If you stick to a simple 1d6 roll in a five year block (how kong it usually takes to bring new torpedo tech on line.

1d6 1-2 Excellent +1
1d6 3-4 Good       0
1d6 5-6 Poor       -1     

Could turn out that you get excellent torpedoes(*1920-1925) or clunkers.

Inequality is a fact of life. Wars are based on that fact.

Unless we take this into account for all items of tech, I dont think it is wise to implement something like this. Also, think of the micromangament involved in keeping track of all this.

On the idea as presented: While numbers would need to be talked about, I think the idea is fairly sound.

While I can see the logic behind this suggestion, I am strongly against it. I will be the main one impacted by it, and it would be costly. Asymmetrical weapons are the only thing small countries have going for them and you people keep making them more expensive.

I could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.

Quotethe problem MTBs bring up in particular were partialy brought up in 1908 with DFs turbinas. A navy with no MTBS suddenly was building dozens on an island (Hainan?)with little infrastructure. MTBs require highpower engines and highly trained crews, both are rare things and take time to build-especially in this timeframe). None of this was taken into account.

Actually I have built quite a few before the war. Also at the time Taiwan and Hainan where independent countries with stand alone factories.

QuoteCould turn out that you get excellent torpedoes(*1920-1925) or clunkers.

Tech inequality of quality is a provable fact of life. Wars are based on that fact.

That's what the tech tree is for...

We keep track of mines?  ??? :o

Quote from: Sachmle on November 30, 2010, 06:55:35 PM
We keep track of mines?  ??? :o

I didnt realize that either...

However I do like the idea of paying for torpedoes because they are quite large and are not very easy to store and transport to rearm ships at sea. 

To a degree. Somewhere it was posted that we each get 10,000 mines at the start(game start=1906 so 1905 type mines). Then it was finally posted(after I asked many times) what they cost($1/0.5BP per 2000). Russia has purchased many more since(maybe another 12,000 1908 type- i've got it somewhere around here... ) Now the 1918 type will begin production for many folks. So if you have been building them, then you should have how many you have bought somewhere. Otherwise just the 14+ year old decrepit 1905 types rusting away in an armory somewhere(with acid leaking out of the horns... hmmm could get ugly... anyone want some old mines?).   ;D

So... some people have been purchasing them just like the Corps ammo or stocking up on Gas attacks.

Alright.  I guess Egypt has some 10,000 ancient horned mines causing a minor environmental catastrophe somewhere.  I wonder how long it would take to plant them all in a single belt across the Mediterranean.... hrm... the possibilities...  ;D

I am still looking around for the 'official' rules but I found this part. So my memory may be off about mine type for the 10,000. But it would not make sense that you suddenly have 10,000 new type mines after researching the next mine tech level.

QuoteMeeting Room/Rules updates
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 12:56:15 pm by P3D »
Mine warfare

One mine is considered to weight 1ton - 'long' ton, as in displacement, iirc 1016kg
1000 t of mines cost 0.25BP and $0.5 (increased cost)
Player define the area (sq.nm) numbers of mines in every minefield.
Minefields degrade 10% of their starting size every 6 months.
Every nation has 10,000t of mines stockpiled unless depleted in war.

Quote from: Blooded on November 30, 2010, 07:38:01 PM
I am still looking around for the 'official' rules but I found this part. So my memory may be off about mine type for the 10,000. But it would not make sense that you suddenly have 10,000 new type mines after researching the next mine tech level.

I agree.  Updating existing inventories takes time.  Egypt probably still has M1905 mines though...

Quote from: Desertfox on November 30, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
While I can see the logic behind this suggestion, I am strongly against it. I will be the main one impacted by it, and it would be costly. Asymmetrical weapons are the only thing small countries have going for them and you people keep making them more expensive.

That is reality. Precision weapons are expensive and scarce for a reason. They are hard to make.

QuoteI could support this suggestion but only for a bonus BP factory, call it a grandfathered torpedo factory.

Please explain how that works?

Quotethe problem MTBs bring up in particular were partialy brought up in 1908 with DFs turbinas. A navy with no MTBS suddenly was building dozens on an island (Hainan?)with little infrastructure. MTBs require highpower engines and highly trained crews, both are rare things and take time to build-especially in this timeframe). None of this was taken into account.

QuoteActually I have built quite a few before the war. Also at the time Taiwan and Hainan where independent countries with stand alone factories.

How was that possible? Where did they get their copper and tin for air flask manufacture, which neither actually has?

QuoteCould turn out that you get excellent torpedoes(*1920-1925) or clunkers.

Tech inequality of quality is a provable fact of life. Wars are based on that fact.

QuoteThat's what the tech tree is for..

Apparently some may not understand the difference between a hand-made weapon and a machine-made weapon. A 1918 torpedo has the equivalent of built-in Swiss watch movement. It is a precision made weapon at the 1918 level almost exactly equivalent to a modern hand-built satellite today. There is no such thing as a mass produced torpedo when the parts have to meet 1/10000th inch tolerances in that era. (Mark 14 US 1930 still failed to meet that quality.)

There was a curious flywheel powered weapon, that if its maker had figured out how to make a motor drive that could make the weapon work at extreme ranges would actually be superior to the clumsy torpedoes we use today. It was known for its ease of manufacture and rough simplicity to make. It was called the Howell torpedo and it was appropriately named that because once you heard that thing launched and you heard its howl you knew that you were dead, it was so deadly simply as it roared toward you.    

One just can't wave a hand and say presto I have torpedoes. I sure can't. If I do get oxygen torpedoes, I have to treat them as a very scarce resource because those fish require bottled oxygen gas. I have to use stainless steels and brass fittings. I have to handbuild all the valves and piping and I have to have trained crews that can check those torpedoes for corrosion and leaks constantly as well as manufacture defects, as well as guard against fire spark and flame, because even kerosene in the presence of pure oxygen is deadly. The use of alcohol a preferred fuel is far worse with that pure oxidizer.

The whole point of the exercise is that small and medium sized countries (KoN is a medium sized country as is the NS~ equal in size) are NOT France.

We should have lots of problems with torpedoes.      

Ok,

This is a good descussion.   I agree that Torpedoes have always been Hand Machined Tooled weapons.   And reliability issues that such items had in this time period need to be addressed.  If you launched 100 WW1 Torps you might find as many as 25 of them simply failed to run or failed to run properly.  In addition of those that hit you would end up with a significant number of Duds or Low Order Detonations.

In addition they are a clear Logistical Log Jam... they are not machine massed produced like Artillary Shells.   And Despite Desertfoxs claims A-Symetrical War is not nor has it ever been Cheap.   Producing a Large Number of PT or MTB Boats does not a real defense make.  And while the production of the boats themselves is cheap maintaining the supply of Torpedoes to them is expensive.

The US Navy had its own Production facility for Torpedoes If I remember Production was extremely limited in Peace Time to probably a few Dozen to as many as a 100 a month.  And then every single torpedo requires constant maintenance by a trained technician.  Without maintenance you end up with the performance problems of the Early WWII US Torpedoes.

So Torpedoes make a good discussion point but then we have to decide just exactly what we are going to track from Logistics point of view.   We track Artillary Ammo, and Mines, but right now we dont track Naval Munitions other then Mines ??