Motor Torpedo Boats

[Desertfox]

So I've been thinking about MTBs and I feel that they could potentially break the sim. They are currently insanely cheap, extremely effective, and the "motor" part is anachronistic by about 10 years (since it requires aircraft engines). You can build 25 MTBs for the cost of one 1,000t destroyer. The effectiveness is also questionable, MTBs had some success in OTL, but it was limited, 39 US PT boats at Suriago Strait failed to score a single hit. And finally, historically, the first true "M"TB doesn't show up until mid-WWI (~1915). I think the MTB Architecture needs to be modified of else if we keep it as is, spamming MTBs will cause serious issues.

Some suggestions as to what I think should be done:
-Move the tech availability down in years (1905 MTBs now 1910 MTBs), possibly tie it to aircraft tech instead of DD tech.
-Change "range" to "combat radius" and drastically cut it (by half?)
-Double costs, at least IC but possibly BPs as well
-Restrict MTBs to 14" torpedoes
-Restrict what weather conditions they can operate in, especially when crossing open waters
-Require MTB tenders for every X amount (10? 25?) MTBs built.

In short, increase costs and tie them down more to a base/tender

[The Rock Doctor]

I have concerns as well, but do not have specific suggestions as yet.

[maddox]

It's the bias to torpedo's we see that make MTB's so powerfull.   Actualy, the first vessel that could have been an MTB, was Turbinia.    Just add one or 2 tubes, and let her rip.

It's more an effect of the sim systems we use than irl examples.    The one I used, the adapted Mekton Zeta "capital battle" was partial to longer ranged missiles and "torpedos" in effect, semi homing plasma projectiles. (they couldn't turn, only forward momentum and 10° adjustment in a salvo once in a turn) Direct fire beam weapons were lightspeed, and attenuation to distance wasn't a big deal, as you would miss.
Seekrieg seems to have a simular bias. And I have to admit, Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has the same issue.  A torpedo swarm towards a fleet is devestating.

But unless the rules change, the Inca will keep on investing on MTB en MGB.

[The Rock Doctor]

Agreed, it's a conflict between gaming systems and historical examples, but it places us in an awkward position as players.

I cannot immediately speak to semi-homing plasma projectiles, but please refer to the Research worksheet in my forthcoming H1/13 report.

[Desertfox]

Gaming systems and torpedoes are part of the problem, which is why I suggest restricting MTBs to 14" torpedoes -> lower range and smaller warheads. But I feel the cost and the performance of the MTBs themselves is a problem, you need around a 300t TB to simulate the same performance as a 40t MTB.

But to put it into perspective, for the cost of a single Armored Cruiser (10 BP), I can permanently shut down the Tsushima Strait (250 MTBs). And it took literally half of my fleet (~150,000t) to destroy a single MTB squadron (~4,000t) and I still got two battleships damaged.

[snip]

I disagree that MTB spam in and of itself is going to "break" the sim, its only going to make it diverge from OLT in a different way. MTBs as they influence the N-verse, and specifically in the current war, are really just an additional outgrowth of the OTL fear of torpedoes that was already a major factor in pushing battle ranges farther for fear of putting capital units at risk from torpedo platforms. The only variance I see here is that we have a practical example to draw on as far as in-universe design theory goes. As shown, MTBs are very light weight and do not take hits well at all. The counters are there, QF guns with modern fire control, fast large destroyers and screen ships that can work to keep the MTBs at arm's length from capital units while being mobile enough to greatly reduce the threat of torpedo, and maybe choosing more carefully what sort of ships are sent into relatively confined waters where MTBs have proven effective. Personally, I feel that the effect that the use of MTBs in there current (relative) state is a Good Thing (tm) for the sim as it means we can rely on in-universe combat expectations rather than OTL-driven expectations. Calls for major adjustments to MTBs from a cost standpoint, including hard basing requirements that no other ship type in the rules requires, are premature and unnecessary.

That said, I think there is merit to discussing combat radius and sea-state limitations for MTBs, since they are lighter and quite tiny compared to even small destroyers. I have no strong feelings about weapon limitations (especially on early types like the A and B), but would like to see the preceved issue addressed with "soft" stats (eg sea-state effect on  capabilities) rather than hard limits.

[maddox]

Also, the "mayor powers" ain't as big as the IRL mayor powers of the day and age. We all are the IRL French of the 1910's.

[The Rock Doctor]

Do we have any special rules in effect for their construction or do MTBs just use drydocks/slips like every thing else?

[Kaiser Kirk]

That said, I think there is merit to discussing combat radius and sea-state limitations for MTBs, since they are lighter and quite tiny compared to even small destroyers. I have no strong feelings about weapon limitations (especially on early types like the A and B), but would like to see the preceved issue addressed with "soft" stats (eg sea-state effect on  capabilities) rather than hard limits.

On that point, it's part of why I've been rolling weather. Seastate 4- = ok for MTBs.  Seastate 7 or 8 and supposedly torpedoes won't work well as they can catch air in the troughs.

Overall, it's worthwhile discussion

Personally, I'd rather have a naval game where the most effective thing is a ship with big guns. Not submarines, torpedo bombers or MTBs.
I'm happy to modify things to that end.
I've already started by making torpedoes less effective, I may have more work to do.

Like I said, I had hoped to playtest and modify Seekrieg later this summer, but this war came up.

I want to strongly point out that lack of fire control is make a huge difference. A 15% chance to hit is pretty decent, and is wiped out if you don't have any fire control - not even rangefinders. ...I just realized, I've been removing that penalty at 3km, but the Baseline tech puts it 2km...I've been overly generous ... 
Add in -4 for twilight, or -9 for moonlight, or -12 for true dark.. and you do not have a shot.

The most numerous Japanese light weapon is a 3", HMS Dreadnaught in 1906 was criticized for only having 3". It hurts, but does not stop the larger craft.

Then there's torpedo nets, cumbersome, have their own problems, but if you don't have a TDS...or even if you do...they worked until Gallipoli. Then a submarine with the next gen of torpedos with net cutters sat and shot multiple times at the same panel of net, knocking it down and striking the targets. That's not doable with MTBs under fire.  The Brits even used Torpedo nets in WWII, retrofitted on merchants, and they worked pretty well.

As for the stats, again valid to discuss.
The Parthians were able to field reasonable 60t TBs with SS3, but as speeds went up, seakeeping became unacceptable, and there was just a point I could not sim the RL MTBs.
It is a little annoying that the 40 ton is so effective, but the table does exist as acknowledgement that you cant make the little stuff with SS3
I think dropping the hit rate worked well for the MTBs. Perhaps drop that further as things go on...folks putting more training in torpedo evasion or something.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Do we have any special rules in effect for their construction or do MTBs just use drydocks/slips like every thing else?

MTBs use drydocks/slips.
Pregame I got a mod ruling from snip that they are 20m long.
So I build 2 per 50m drydock.

[The Rock Doctor]

Good to know.

Perhaps I will have to close my eyes and build some MTBs for my more tranquil overseas possessions.

[Kaiser Kirk]

But to put it into perspective, for the cost of a single Armored Cruiser (10 BP), I can permanently shut down the Tsushima Strait (250 MTBs). And it took literally half of my fleet (~150,000t) to destroy a single MTB squadron (~4,000t) and I still got two battleships damaged.

Actually this goes to a different point as well- back in February I was trying to interest folks in cost differences for different architectures.  DDs/SS/ Aircraft cost more to build and maintain than SS's light tonnage would suggest. They are artificially cheap in our system.
...and I'm strongly thinking the Parthians are going to be building a bunch more DDs and Light cruisers in the near term...

[Desertfox]

Some more numbers, using just my smaller docks, I can build 56 MTBs a half year (2.24 BP). Using all my docks I can build 128 a half year (5.12 BP).

Personally, I'd rather have a naval game where the most effective thing is a ship with big guns. Not submarines, torpedo bombers or MTBs.
I'm happy to modify things to that end.
I've already started by making torpedoes less effective, I may have more work to do.

I mean... you could have not given the Chinese half a million TBs...  ;)

I designed my fleet for big gun battles and colonization and paid the price for it...

Actually this goes to a different point as well- back in February I was trying to interest folks in cost differences for different architectures.  DDs/SS/ Aircraft cost more to build and maintain than SS's light tonnage would suggest. They are artificially cheap in our system.

I had that discussion in mind, partially why I suggest doubling costs. What did happen to it?

[maddox]

Even in WWII MTB's/PT's weren't that succesfull.  But those kept the enemy distracted.

Aircraft became more effective against ships after WW II started, and in some cases, purely by accident.  Or by being to slow to aim at. (Swordfish)
It took 2-3 years into WW II to get them effective against  manouvering ships , and that with massed attacks. 
Any previous succesfull attact was against ships in port.  Taranto and Pearl Harbor as prime examples.  And that rather against ships with "inadequate AA".

[The Rock Doctor]

We did have higher DD/SS costs in N3, as I recall.

I have CLs and DDs in the plan but I also had a capital ship slotted in for 1/13 and now I'm pondering how to approach that.