Harass from a Distance seems powerful for a 1939 aircraft that usually made relatively short range torpedo attacks. From wiki:
"The primary weapon of the Swordfish was the aerial torpedo, but the low speed of the biplane and the need for a long straight approach made it difficult to deliver against well-defended targets. Swordfish torpedo doctrine called for an approach at 5,000 feet (1,500 m) followed by a dive to torpedo release altitude of 18 feet (5.5 m). Maximum range of the early Mark XII torpedo was 1,500 yards (1,400 m) at 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph) and 3,500 yards (3,200 m) at 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph). The torpedo travelled 200 feet (61 m) forward from release to water impact, and required another 300 yards (270 m) to stabilize at preset depth and arm itself. Ideal release distance was 1,000 yards (910 m) from target if the Swordfish survived to that distance."
Seems to me effective range would be somewhere between 0.5 and 0.75 NMs. This is less than the Type 91 carried by the Kate, and the later Jill (which does admittedly get Harass from a Distance). Also from Wiki:
"The Type 91 torpedo was 450 mm (18 in) in diameter. There were five models put into service, with high-explosive warheads weighing 213.5 to 526.0 kg (471 to 1,160 lb) and having effective ranges of 1,500 to 2,000 m (1,600 to 2,200 yd) at 78 km/h (42 kn)."
Both torpedoes could obviously be fired beyond 1 NM (as the underlined portion on the Swordfish), but at lower speeds and with a much lower probability of a hit, simply due to travel time on a straight-running torp. I know the Swordfish can be a pain in the neck to use in the face of what I think it pretty badly inflated KM AA, particularly in the early war years, but I don't know that the Swordfish's success can be attributed to it's ability to fire at particularly long ranges.
The set 6 Swordfish Mk.I gave us a much better (cheaper and more survivable - though arguably not cheap enough) Swordfish than the original Mk.II (I did like the Mk.II's higher attack values). I'm trying to understand what this is trying to achieve above and beyond the Mk.I, which was clearly an effort to better than the original Swordfish we got early in the game. Is there a particular event, squadron, pilot, etc that this is "Elite" unit is intended to be based on?
...
As I write all this, I freely admit I'm still thinking through the game balance impact of Harass from a Distance on a plane like this. Much harder to stop, completely eliminates most surface ship AA in the early war, but we are only talking about 1 torpedo. It certainly places a higher demand on fighter cover to counter it, at least until later years when we start to get a few ships with range 1 AA. I'm trying to remember which SAs can boost Harass from a Distance (I recall some do and some don't) and if there is a way to take this from being a low percentage option to a torpedo barrage terror like a group of Jill can be if properly supported.
Starting to ramble a bit.
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
The rules clarification subforum indicates expert torpedoes is not applicable. I dont see any other mention of SAs.
Allies dont have a scouting cruiser option. Shadowing exists from 1940 via fulmar. Im guessing sneak attack/illustriuous also applies 1940onwards.
The RN was capable of torpedo strikes in 1939, more so than most navies. Its not unreasonable to give them that capacity in light of the games abstract nature. Certainly, it will be no cheaper than its sister squadrons
Harass doesn’t make sense for a couple of reasons.
Wizards put it on a late-war, top-tier torpedo bomber that’s as expensive as any bomber. You’re giving up a lot in terms of opportunity cost and your build points to basically be bulletproof and roll 2 fewer torpedo dice (maybe 4). This is nothing like a tennish-point twenties TB that only gives up one torpedo die.
As pointed out, the torpedoes don’t have long range.
Axis Antiair doesn’t have the capability to counter this like the Allies have with range-1 AA. They especially can’t do this early in the war.
If you want to make this a nod to elite pilots, just do Elan so it doesn’t die so easily and let it reroll an attack die per turn.
I always come down on the playability side of these discussions. Strictly applied HfD isn't ideal. However, deceptive target(sword mk1) demonstrates that the points/stats compression of the power scale don't allow the swordfish to be in any way useful.
Would a rename of the ability make it more palletable?
Hmm, I’ve got to disagree seeing as I just got shredded by a UK air swarm despite the fact that I brought air and battleships.
It’s not the name that’s the problem, it’s that the Axis can’t answer ranged attacks and it’s a big difference bringing 4 or 8 cheaper Swordies vs. the same number of Jills in terms of how you can build a fleet.
The Swordfish is a 3/6/1 armor biplane. It was good against ships with no air cover in WWII, or attacking unprepared units at night. If it had to attack ships in the face of real fighters, it would have been meat. I know many would like it to be better in an environment facing Bf-109s, Fw-190s, etc, but the reality is it would have been in deep trouble facing fighters. There is a romanticism around this plane that keep driving an effort to make it more survivable than it really was.
Maybe a Battle of Taranto Swordfish to reflect their effectiveness in night attacks and/or bad weather?
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones
Capturing peoples imaginations is why we're all here.
Without shadowing, and assuming no intercepts. You'll score 1 hit ever 2 turns with a 3+escort strike package. Shadowing increases that to 1 pr turn averaged.
Whats the statistical likelihood of AA6 aborting a 3armour escorted bomber in comparison?
So which plane from the list is this going to replace??? And to be perfectly honest, we really don't need another swordfish. We should have gotten a bomber version of the Mosquito...
Thought about this over the bubblies for new years. I would love to see a Swordfish with a night and/or bad weather SA. Would really reflect there effectiveness in low-light/crappy weather conditions (which is where the Sword accomplished the most historically).
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way. - Captain John Paul Jones