Surface Gamble

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Surface Gamble

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Surface Gamble

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Surface Gamble - 12/3/2005 10:12:16 PM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

the situation: my opponent invaded Sabang (northern tip of Sumatra), short on BBs and DDs (2 BBs out of 6 sunk, the rest disabled by air power) he decided he'd use 10 PTs to protect the LZ instead.

see for yourselves, this was a juicy landing zone with 40+transports unloading under minimal cover (4-6 DDs, most of them damaged by CD, 3 CLs, 1 CA), my SC TF consisted of 2DDs and BBs Hyuga and Yamashiro.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Sabang at 19,41

Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 153, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
PT PT-36, Shell hits 66, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hyuga sank during the same turn.

Post #: 1

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/3/2005 10:23:56 PM

SurrenderMonkey

Posts: 124
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline

Ouch!

As I understand it, this was the theory behind the PT boat at its inception - that it could sneak in and do some damage against capital ships at night. Never really happened IRL, but there it is in the game. Ouch.

_____________________________

Wise Men Still Seek Him

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 2

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 1:32:07 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

Ayup, them PT boat 50 caliber machines guns are real ship killers.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to SurrenderMonkey)

Post #: 3

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 12:50:07 PM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

yeah, i can see how they do massive damage if they get close enough under the cover of darkness (that's if they manage to find a big black dreadnought doing 20kts on an unknown course at night without radar and anything) without being discovered

in this case, they WERE found and 66 hits were scored - on flying debris i assume, imagine a PT boat taking 66 5in and 5.5in hits- while the other BB and 2 DDs were just watching the show, ain't that ridiculous? no amount of database tweaking can fix that broken algorithm, obviously. same with air attacks on TFs - targetted ships are all but alone, i can put 2 fast BBs and 3 CLAAs into a CV TF, once the kates get through, it's 3 CVs and 2 DDs fending for themselves....

on a side note, every time i attack PT boats with hordes of DDs, i only manage to sink one or two of them, effectively sustaining cover of an LZ or harbor for days, while any other TF needs to be defeated once and only once.

(in reply to SurrenderMonkey)

Post #: 4

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 2:37:24 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

IMO DD's need a bit of armour to help vs the 50cal rounds . how on earth did one PT hit with 4 torps ! .. dont they carry maximum of 2???? and no reloads. And as allied shouldnt be able to re-load in combat (AFAIK thats only available to japanese long lance types)

very disturbing

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 5

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 4:05:00 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

PTs were conceived as being able to do exactly what happened here. Destroyers were initially called torpedo-boat destroyers, I believe because torpedo boats did in fact achieve some success against capital ships in some rather obscure wars in the late 19th century.
Just for kicks I found a map of "Sabang" which is apparently an island just off the North end of Sumatra. A larger port city currently know as Banda Aceh would seem to be the actual objective. Attacking the anchorage used by an invasion fleet would apparently involve transiting one or another strait each approx 10 miles wide though somewhat more restricted due shallower water around Sabang Island and the Sumatran mainland. Idling along at bare steerage way so as to make no wake or noise it seems quite plausible that the aforementioned 10 PTs could cover the straits quite well visually. Much would depend on moonlight and other factors but you can bet that the BBs would be a lot more visible than the PTs. With only 2 DDs as a screen I don't find it that hard to imagine several PTs being able to launch at the BBs from relatively close range. 4 hits on a BB never happened but I think a court of inquiry would fault the IJN Admiral who led capital ships into restricted waters with an insufficient screen for losing his BB. Neither Yamashiro nor Hyuga actually ever did squat during the war except get sunk. Even the Japanese made fun of the Battle Line's perpetual inactivity. As far as being somehow experienced in night battle all those two ships ever had was the benefit of training. The training didn't help Yamashiro much at Surigao Strait (killed by DD torpedos - I think only one enemy DD even hit in return).

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 6

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 5:46:39 PM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

IMO DD's need a bit of armour to help vs the 50cal rounds . how on earth did one PT hit with 4 torps ! .. dont they carry maximum of 2???? and no reloads. And as allied shouldnt be able to re-load in combat (AFAIK thats only available to japanese long lance types)

very disturbing

well, the obvious reason is that all PTs launched their tin fish, scoring 4 hits, so far so good, problem is that the BB hit one PT 66 times while ignoring 9 others, with predictable results. of course, that's without counting the other BB and the escorts, which failed spectacularly. they should at least have engaged, which they didn't. don't care if they get hit and sink, as long as they put up a FIGHT first.

i have no problem with losing ships in risky operations, but not due to engine f*ckups. the entire surface model leaves a sour taste, recently i intercepted an AP convoy with 4 CAs, which sank all DD escorts in a heartbeat, but then broke off a victorious engagement, leaving 10 sitting duck APs unscathed.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 7

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 6:12:54 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Re your CAs vs APs I feel your pain....Admiral Mikawa (reference Savo Island).
As for the one PT hit 66 times...it's easy to imagine that was the only one seen. Without the full combat replay one is left with constructing a plausible sequence of the battle...which in my mind's eye has several PTs lurking in the darkness unseen which launch their torps at a big target turn and speed away laying a smoke screen and zig-zagging wildly. One gets spotted and every gun in the IJN force opens up on it setting it afire. The other PTs get lost in the darkness so the Japs keep shooting at the only thing they can see.
While IJN cruisers and destroyers were practiced in night battle the role envisioned for the BBs was more or less the same as for USN BBs...daytime gun battle a la Jutland. IJN employment of BBs at night can show success only once...the Oct 12-13 1942 bombardment of Henderson Field. It ought to be noted that there was no naval opposition on that night. As for IJN BBs in night battle against another naval force the IJN BBs failed on every occasion to accomplish their mission:
1) 1st night, Naval Battle of Guadalcanal: mission: bombard Henderson Field. What happened: nighttime surface action: heavy losses to USN but BB Hiei damaged and can't clear the battlefield getting sunk next day by US a/c (OK it was scuttled... because it was totally wrecked then)
2) 3rd night, Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. mission: bombard Henderson Field. What happened: nighttime surface action - BB Kirishima wrecked and scuttled... no bombardment
3)Battle of Surigao Strait. mission: attack Leyte invasion fleet. What happened: nighttime surface action against overwhelming fleet. IJN wiped out.

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 8

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 7:06:40 PM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

ok, i think i found a way to explain it, look at slot 319 in the classes list - 4 torps per PT...

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 9

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 7:59:15 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Distiller

ok, i think i found a way to explain it, look at slot 319 in the classes list - 4 torps per PT...

The Dutch boats have only 2, the US types 4.

Actually, the 66 hits on the PT sounds like an old bug that used to pop up in UV a lot - a task force would get into a logic loop and continually shoot at one ship, no matter what. In one instance, there was a CL that sank the Yamato when it got into this loop.

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 10

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 8:41:30 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Bad Surface TF composition.

It is an extreme result but not unimaginable. The Austrians lost a BB to Italian PT boats in WWI, that is the only example I am aware of, but they also could have used a larger DD screen.

Basically this is unlikely to happen but theoretically possible so I am not sure it is a problem that really deserves attention.

The CAs and the APs on the other hand is a major failing of the surface combat model. Even worse is what happens when one CA (or CL or other surface combatent) finds a single AK, or two find two. In the game the AK often gets away, but in history there is not one single example of lone merchant ship escaping a surface raider. When there are 20 ships they can scatter and some get away, but if there is only one there should be a 100% chance of a kill.

One of the totally bizzare things about WitP is that airplanes never get away in the game, but often got away in real life and ships often get away in the game and never got away in real life.

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 11

RE: Surface Gamble - 12/4/2005 11:52:37 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

<Extreme Silliness Alert>

Sooo, in real life in one form of combat the enemy always gets away and in the other he never gets away.

In WiTP, the enemy never gets away in one form of combat and always gets away in the other.

QED: 2by3 got it right! The enemy escapes in one and doesn't in the other. The game is obviously perfectly historical then.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 12