Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion

 
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 >> WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:20:43 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Just what it says. Matrix has always been responsive to their customers. What Say we start brainstorming in case this becomes a reality?

Let's keep it to constructive comments/criticism. I am starting this thread but hope the Mods will patrol it and keep things positive.

Ideas for the new model and limitations of/gripes about the old one are welcome. limit your post to posting ideas/gripes not engaging each other in pointless arguements. Feel free to agree and expand on each others concepts!


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES


Post #: 1
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:29:26 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		I would like to see a little more probability of open ocean intercepts between surface combat TFs which have been spotted by scout planes, etc. Granted they should still be rare but right now it seems almost impossible to make an intercept. On the other hand, if others think it is unrealistic to increase this probability then I will (somewhat reluctantly in this case) go with the realism camp.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 2
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:50:35 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I go with the realism camp as Gary noted, but he still has a point. The problem is that right now those intercepts only take place if TF's end the phase in the same hex. Even if they passed each other on opposite courses, there's only an intercept if the end in the same hex.

Perhaps there could be a check to see if TF's intercept during transit rather than just at phase end.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 3
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 6:12:57 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I would like to see a little more probability of open ocean intercepts between surface combat TFs which have been spotted by scout planes, etc. Granted they should still be rare but right now it seems almost impossible to make an intercept. On the other hand, if others think it is unrealistic to increase this probability then I will (somewhat reluctantly in this case) go with the realism camp.


I agree. Mid-ocean intercepts should be assesed per hex during the movement of TFs, not just at the end of the turn. This would require a more sophisticated movement model for TFs - I guess that currently in WitP the TFs are moved one at a time, and not concurrently, which is why intercets are only assessed at the end of a turn at the moment.

Another addition could be a "shadow" option, in which a SCTF can be set to follow, but not engage, an enemy TF. Again this should be a rarely used option, and difficult to achieve, requiring advantages in TF speed and radar, co-operative weather and skillful commanders/crew, but should at least be possible.

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 3/19/2006 6:13:56 AM >

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 4
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 6:39:10 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		I have also felt that if two SFC TFs WANT to engage in a mid Ocean intercept then it should be a lot easier. Spotter plane sends "they are here." Opposing Spotter sends "They are here". Admirals say "Go toward the enemy" - Combat occurs.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 5
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:48:08 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		To steal an idea from a totally differnt genre.

In a Napoleonic Game during enemy movement it asked whether you wanted to counter-charge enemy Cavalry. You had a chanc to look at the situation and decide whether you wanted to risk it.

In WITP, while you might have wanted to intercept at the start of the turn, the CV TF's lurking nearby might make you change your mind, or allow you to choose what TF you want to hit.

But it wouldnt work in PBEM, so when you set a TF to intercept you could also set priority of target and other variables.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 6
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 11:04:45 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline 		I would like my warship TFs that are on Surface Patrol to really be able to "spank" the cargo/transport convoys I run into every now and then. I just don't see why a warship TF would disengage from attacking an easy target - specially during the day. Maybe they might stop due to lack of ammo...

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 7
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 3:05:28 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I would like to see a little more probability of open ocean intercepts between surface combat TFs which have been spotted by scout planes, etc. Granted they should still be rare but right now it seems almost impossible to make an intercept. On the other hand, if others think it is unrealistic to increase this probability then I will (somewhat reluctantly in this case) go with the realism camp.


I agree. Mid-ocean intercepts should be assesed per hex during the movement of TFs, not just at the end of the turn. This would require a more sophisticated movement model for TFs - I guess that currently in WitP the TFs are moved one at a time, and not concurrently, which is why intercets are only assessed at the end of a turn at the moment.

Another addition could be a "shadow" option, in which a SCTF can be set to follow, but not engage, an enemy TF. Again this should be a rarely used option, and difficult to achieve, requiring advantages in TF speed and radar, co-operative weather and skillful commanders/crew, but should at least be possible.



Instead of having the generic Surface TF create several more mission specific TF's - ie shadow, merchant raider, intercept, main battle fleet etc.

Idea which has come up in the A2A thread - by breaking down the turn into discrete impulses- if a TF is in the same hex as another during the same impulse - BAM combat depending on the assigned missions of the TF's.



_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 8
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 6:04:35 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		During daylight hours mid-ocean intercepts should be somewhat easy. But then you would have surface battles which take place in the middle of movement, lets say at 10 am, when in fact an air attack at 9 am should have already happened to one (or both) of the TFs. So unless you integrate all movement, both air and sea, instead of the way it is now, you can't have realistic results.

At night it is different. I would say there are no night attacks on moving naval vessels (someone will of course complain about this I'm sure). So surface and sub-surface intercepts should be possible - but not as likely as the 100% it currently is in 60 mile hexes. The hex size as you might expect should be a factor in the likelihood of interception as well as whether the hex is mid-ocean or shore. This would mean in a truly mid-ocean hex you would not necessarily find the other task force (again depending on what hex size is used) but you would always find the other task force who is making a landing or most likely find a task force passing through a straight.


_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 9
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:42:30 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm beginning tio see that many complaints/problems are simply as a result of the system doing 12 hour phases that do not run simultainously. We need a time scale where aircraft are in the air longer then a single turn with TF and LCU moving at the same time.

WITP is 1600 turns long. How many turns are we willing to play?
The more tactical you make the game the harder it is to make a good AI.

Currently one type of unit (ship/air/land) functions either before or after the other type has executed it's turn. So ships fight other ships after they have used all their movement. And then Aircraft operate and then land units operate. when really aircraft should be looking for ships and attacking while the ships are still moving. And one type of aircraft (fighter) should be able to intercept other air missions while they are in flight going to or returning from targets. Ever notice that if you fly LRCAP over enemy airfield you do not intercept strikes leaving or returning to the airfield?

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/19/2006 7:47:01 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 10
Surface Intercepts - 3/19/2006 11:19:34 PM   
Distiller

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline 		If your ship is faster and the enemy's location is known (say, by floatplane) i see no reason not to allow a chase, tbh.

Just use the 'follow TF' command on enemy forces. Intercepting carriers with BBs will remain next to impossible, but unexpectedly running into a squadron of CAs with a fleet of 20 AKs and 5 DDs as escort would be very bad news indeed - as it should be, imho.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 11
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/19/2006 11:39:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I'm beginning tio see that many complaints/problems are simply as a result of the system doing 12 hour phases that do not run simultainously. We need a time scale where aircraft are in the air longer then a single turn with TF and LCU moving at the same time.

WITP is 1600 turns long. How many turns are we willing to play?
The more tactical you make the game the harder it is to make a good AI.

Currently one type of unit (ship/air/land) functions either before or after the other type has executed it's turn. So ships fight other ships after they have used all their movement. And then Aircraft operate and then land units operate. when really aircraft should be looking for ships and attacking while the ships are still moving. And one type of aircraft (fighter) should be able to intercept other air missions while they are in flight going to or returning from targets. Ever notice that if you fly LRCAP over enemy airfield you do not intercept strikes leaving or returning to the airfield?


The same number as now. I think you are misunderstanding - there should be impulses during turn-resolution (all computer driven), not more turns.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 12
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/20/2006 1:38:37 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		How about this (to allow mid-ocean intercept in daytime)???:

Between the end of the PM airphase resolution and Daytime Surface Combat Resolution insert a Naval Reaction Phase. The number of hexes a TF could move would depend on how many OPS points remain to it (presumably out of 1000), its max speed and whether "REACT" is on or off.

One thing not tracked now (I think) is how many Ops points are consumed by air attack. That might require a bunch of code to do but I'm no programer so I have no idea.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 13
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 3/20/2006 10:11:19 AM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		And there should be reaction for surface TFs as well, so if they have remaining ops points they could move closer to their targets. ANd I agree with more open ocean intercepts, it's badly needed because now 99% of surface combat occurs in coastal hexes.

_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 14
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 5:03:49 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Bump

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 15
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 6:10:05 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		If your SC TF has a reaction set at "x" it should close on an enemy TF that has been previously spotted with that range or if not, then based on the number of planes your TF has set on Naval Search. If your SC TF has a Mission Speed of 5 and the enemy is mainly AK/TK/AP with a mission speed of 2, it should be hard to avoid.
There needs to be a toggle to choose: combat ships (Air, SC), transports (Escort, Transport), or all for types of SC missions.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 16
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 6:19:49 AM   
jolly_pillager

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline 		A more intellegent allocation of fire from surface ships...if your BB's fail their fire roll with their main armament because there are no other BB's (as Tom Hunter demonstrated) then they should use them against CA's/CL's...if they are on a raid (Retirement toggled "on") then they should use them against ANY target in the hex until they are reduced to a minimum safety level of Ammo (enough for one engagement with a surface combat TF say).

Change the "off doing something else" check from individual ships to TF's...

More verbose replay messages...too much is not explained ion the combat text which leads to much frustration. If a ship cannot engage because it has no target ID'ed, it should be tagged as such with an icon.

More FoW...unspotted ships should not only not be named...they shouldn't be on the display at all.

The ability to set "Doctrine" for different TF's...or at least, set them for different mission types...by Doctrine I mean a small set of rules for targeting priority (a 1-6 list say with an "all others" at the bottom), a toggle for general attack method (hit and run, maintain contact with surface forces, break past surface forces, willingly break formation to hunt scattering ships, shadow enemy TF...etc. etc.) and a formation choice (tight ring for AAA defense, a loose ring for better manuevering and better spotting, deploy radar pickets, etc. etc.)

For those who don't want to set the Doctrine every time there should be a "Commander's Choice" toggle/setting.

Lastly the adjustment of ammo to the setting of one ammo factor=1 round of ammunition. Then incerase consumption per shot fired to some factor and renormalize accuracy to be in line with historical results.

Allow a single shot (representing multiple shells in multiple volleys) to get multiple hits.

Allow ship captains to lift and shift fire when their target is a burning, sinking, wreck and there is an undamaged AK *right there*

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 17
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 11:19:34 AM   
zuikaku


Posts: 135
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		what I like being improved is mid ocean intercept. It can be done on 60mile hex with some calculation, but on 30mile hex it would be a nightmare. So, i think that this routine have to be automated in some way. Why just not add a new value to description of naval leaders: Mid ocean intercept. The higher the value, the higher is the chance that TF (that has mid ocean intercept orders) is to intercept enemy shipping in that area. I would also like to see german subs and raiders that operated in this area to be included. And I would like that TF could be intercepted on every hex it passes during the day not only the ones where it ends on the night or day phase (I found that most annoying and unrealistic in current WITP engine as you can not intercept path but hexes with most traffic).

(in reply to jolly_pillager)
Post #: 18
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 2:15:45 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		In general I'd like to see a TG/TF approach than just one big TF. Just like USN and IJN did.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to zuikaku)
Post #: 19
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 2:20:03 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Agreed. Let's have TG 58.1, .2, .3, etc.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 20
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 2:23:13 PM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline 		Not just for the fun part but to actually be able to have ONE force with different taska (screening, ASW etc.)

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 2:24:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Heh! Let's go all in and have a Harpoon-style formation editor!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 22
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 2:50:39 PM   
zuikaku


Posts: 135
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		And lets all be able to giv orders how many shells and what type are going to be loaded in each individual turret! And lets introduce every whale, shark and fish that was historically in the theater

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 23
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 5:42:57 PM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Agreed. Let's have TG 58.1, .2, .3, etc.


How about the actual ability to name task forces? It's a simple text string. If they start really early they might be able to program it so it is editable.

Damien Thorn

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 24
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 6:06:24 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I'm beginning tio see that many complaints/problems are simply as a result of the system doing 12 hour phases that do not run simultainously. We need a time scale where aircraft are in the air longer then a single turn with TF and LCU moving at the same time.


Maybe the answer to many of the game's problems is to have 3 eight hour phases (one night/ two day) and have the air and sea ops run simultaneously. One ground phase a day is probably enough.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 25
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/12/2006 6:32:28 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zuikaku

And lets all be able to giv orders how many shells and what type are going to be loaded in each individual turret! And lets introduce every whale, shark and fish that was historically in the theater



Can we also throw in a routine to determine what a captain had for breakfast...or a fire control team ate? Food poisoning can be nasty...Perhaps we can also craft a menu for the individual crewman and ensure the Brits get their grog....Maybe we should also be tasked with detrmining how many apples oranges and bananas need to be loaded as well TP.

Sometimes people forget that too much detail will render a game unplayable.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to zuikaku)
Post #: 26
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/13/2006 2:00:43 AM   
wobbly

 

Posts: 1095
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline 		Just another hair brained Wobbly idea for enhancement of this behemoth.

Surface actions:

One of my quibs about them is the intelligence you gain by looking at the combat replay. All ships are instantly visible.

It seems to me we already have the mechanism to change this. How does having ships unsighted not appear and then ships un-identified be a hazy smudge or a generic outline.

So on your own side you will know you own ships, they either appear as they fire or are fired upon, or are all visible at the beginning. The enemy only appears as they are sighted and are not necessarily properly identified – it might only be class: A Sims type Destroyer (for instance).

You could take this a whole lot further:

Radar only contacts – ships are only identified as the enemy and ships stay at range or close depending on commander.

Invisible torpedo attacks – ships sight enemy but are unsighted themselves – launch torps and turn away. Target has higher chance of being hit and does not even get a sighting report of who got them.

Convoy scatter could work a whole lot better – a 30+ convoy of targets can really scatter. The ships that are sighted though are very likely to be swotted. This could get around the lack of aggression against ‘defenceless’ targets. You still can’t shoot what you can’t see, but things you can see are likely to be squashed.

Own goals – this is a tough one to consider but if you have multiple TFs in the same hex, or a TF is created by a ships falling out of line (through damage), you could even have your own side engaging them, and being engaged in return, until identification is made.

This has to be followed up in combat replays! To accomplish this, only the ships sighted by both sides are show in the replay, and ships type rather than specific ship is used where applicable.

I just think this adds real flavour to the combat replay. It is still as much out of your hands as always but surface on surface combats are the best in the game IMHO. This just really adds flavour. The reduction in intelligence will also add a “what really happened there” accent to it.

Ok – so I was bored!


_____________________________




(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 27
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/13/2006 8:01:16 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Mike Scholl wrote:
"Maybe the answer to many of the game's problems is to have 3 eight hour phases (one night/ two day) and have the air and sea ops run simultaneously. One ground phase a day is probably enough."

Beer.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to wobbly)
Post #: 28
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/13/2006 12:06:00 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		Wobbly has a good idea here.
Now I know many don't like the current combat reply, but at the moment it (IMO) nerfs the FOW. Air search will give a varied report depending on DL, air attack will give details of attacked ships only (not others). In the surface combat replay you see the exact TF composition (with or without ship names).
Now if you take the current DL of the enemy TF into account you would see either:
fully identified ships (eg USS Boise), or
ship class (eg Cleveland class CL), or
ship type (eg DD), or
generic type(eg small combatant, transport, large combatant), or
not see it at all (doesn't appear on display until it opens fire).

FOW should mean just that - we don't have it now with the current combat reply OR the combat text file.

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to wobbly)
Post #: 29
RE: WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion - 4/14/2006 3:34:05 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Improvements to avoid this on 12/16/41:

Avoid these type of combat results: Force Z against "ONLY" AP's....Yuck!!!
Day Time Surface Combat, near Amboina at 39,73
Japanese Ships
ML Yaeyama
AP Africa Maru
AP Seizan Maru, on fire
AP Siraha Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Somedono Maru
AP Taihei Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Taizin Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Zyuyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
AP Chinko Maru

Allied Ships
BB Prince of Wales
BC Repulse
CL Danae
CL Dragon
CL Durban
DD Vampire
DD Vendetta
DD Tenedos
DD Electra
DD Express

Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported

It is going to be hard enough to slow you, especially with these results. Opened fire at 22,000 yards and close to 17,000. Then break of....for what?? Must be "tea time!!" Your ships "NEVER" fired at me....

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> WitP II Surface Combat Model Discussion Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.906