RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 5:17:14 PM

Scott_USN

Posts: 715
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

Incorrect. I understand you may or may not have a problem with the devs but I think you are sadly mistaken and if you played the game for a year you obviously didn't play very much.

Glad to hear you are quite the expert.

My first computer wargame was Guadalcanal Campaign for the Apple. War in the South Pacific, Bomb Ally, Pac War, (didnt waste my time with UV), WitP, and beta on AE (thats just my experience with GGs naval games). Now, within the past couple of months prior to release the following has occurred (you can check mine and Treespiders AARs if you dont believe):

And I care because?

I just notice you seem to have a tainted view of things, some anger that has little to do with the game.

quote:

So please spare me your great wisdom, I have seen too much to even begin to believe your spiel.

Edit: If there isnt anything wrong with it, why are they making changes? My frustration comes from the fact that I pointed out these problems months ago and they are just now being taken seriously. Now from what I have heard from Joe on the Devs forum the changes are going to be pretty good - the biggest issue on this for me was the BS "retreat" logic when ships withdraw from combat which is finally being addressed.

Well I have FAR MORE average engagements than crazy ones. So regardless you said you have never seen an average result so of course after many surface engagements in my game I have not only seen average but allied forces get slaughtered. So that makes me wonder what game you were playing. I sent almost every ship I had at Colombo against the KB and it included CA's and BB's and they get wooped hands down by a Carrier force...

I never said there isn't anything wrong with some of it, I just think you generalizing that since your games have been below average is only one sample of many and that doesn't make your experience the end all of samples.

It is not my spiel, but I think "never" is incorrect and I corrected you because I don't see what you do, but then I have no personal feelings in regards to the issue and my wisdom is unbiased and free.

< Message edited by Scott_USN -- 8/16/2009 5:18:17 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 121

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 6:12:50 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

It amazes me the number of people who are shouting down anyone who dares to say the surface combat results are screwed. They are, simple as, the devs know there is a problem and they are looking into it. Even when the Allies are heavily outnumbered they are coming out on top, time and time again. The examples are there for all to see in this thread.

OK, I know it is a game and you will get non-historic results sometimes....however I think I am correct in saying in real life that the IJN did not lose a single cruiser or destroyer in surface combat until the start of the Guadalcanal campaign. Going off this model, the IJN will be way short of combat ships by the time we hit Aug 42 in the game.

It has to be addressed otherwise the only IJN opponent the Allied "Fanboys" will be able to get a game against will be the AI.

Problem is, I have not seen anything like that in my Dec 8 campaign vs AI. I have smashed few TFs that are unloading, which should be how it is. AI has done same to me. But I have not seen anything you describe and I am into July 42. Surface combats I had vs other SCTF had mostly ended as best draw for me.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 122

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 6:23:49 PM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

OK...here is one:

Night battle off Tassafaronga:

Japs have only 8 DD's, no radar, Takanami, Oyashio, Kuroshio, Kagero, Makinami, Naganami, Kawakaze, and Suzukaze. Even worse, the Japs had no torpedo reloads as they were on a fast transport mission to Lunga.

Allies have the heavy cruisers USS Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pensacola, and Northampton, the light cruiser Honolulu, and four destroyers (Fletcher, Drayton, Maury, and Perkins)...plus radar advantage. Good bye Jap DD's, right?

Nope. The Japs lose one DD, the Allies lose Northampton and the other three CA's are beat up bad..Pensacola was out of the war for 11 mos.

Ridiculous

We all know real life is bugged though

More than most people think!

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 123

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 7:12:31 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

And I've played AE longer than YH has and I've seen many "average" results as well as many outliers. In any case, the pieces of the outliers that have been identified as actual issues are being addressed for the first patch. Let's see how that goes.

Regards,

- Erik

Well, like I said - Allied Edition - I mainly play Japanese and several of the things I have been saying for months is only now being acknowledged and addressed. Go figure.

Yet, even the AI can exceed the historical conquests in this so-called Allied Edition. Conquests that were beyond anyone's expectations at the time. Just matching to where the Japanese expanded should be at least somewhat difficult, but in all flavors of WitP, it's a given.

In the original SuperJap Edition of the game, I'd be building up Noumea and Luganville by now. Instead I'm just making sure I hold Suva and Pago-Pago. I'm not complaining.

The Fantasyland created by WitP is over and that's a very good thing. I hope Matrix doesn't buckle too much.

< Message edited by mjk428 -- 8/16/2009 7:13:04 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 124

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 7:38:42 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Game is rigged! I say, RIGGED!

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 125

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:08:53 PM

romanovich

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

On the subject of radar, the Japanese probably didn't deploy their E-27 detector equipment aboard ship as a 'standard fitting' until 1944, although trial models of the equipment were successfully employed to detect the approach of American TF's during certain battles in the middle Solomons in 1943. The E-27 operated against P-band radars so the target would need to be emitting on one of these to be detected, rather than an S-band radar such as the SG. So it would be easy to ascribe to the Japanese too great an ability to detect the presence of a radiating Allied TF.

OTOH the mere possession of superior radar equipment (or being the only possessor!) does not confer an automatic advantage on the user. The problem with S-band radars was that their PPI display was, if anything, too good, and it took time for operators to understand what they were seeing. I've attached a shot of USS Denver's PPI display taken during the Kula Gulf engagement in March 1943. Sure you can pick out which 'blips' are the Japanese destroyers?

In displays such as this, not only is it easy to confuse an enemy warship (or is it one of your own?) with a nearby shore feature, but when fire is opened your radar will pick up the returns from multiple falls of shot and is liable to display them as a composite blip looking remarkably like a solid target in its own right. Thus there is a danger of your fire 'chasing' the shell splashes, and when you check fire the 'target' disappears (surprise, surprise!) and you wrongly congratulate yourself that you have sunk it. Being able to understand what was actually being shown on the PPI display took time and training - before this, it had the potential to be as much of a liability as an aid.

Another thought: You are operating your non-stabilised surface search set in what the game refers to as a 'thunderstorm'. How calm are the seas around you? Are you pitching about in a sea state that causes your antennae to be pointing at the water half the time? What is that doing for the quality of your returns? Chances are that all surface targets are being obscured by sea return, in which case your opponent has got just as much chance of surprising you as you have of surprising him.

Since radar is one of the things that saw an extensive make-over from WITP, I think the impact this is having is not as intended and this area may need some further tweaking to produce realistic results. All the above shows that radar wasn't easy to master. Add to that inexperience, equipment malfunctions, communication problems, etc., and radar COULD have an impact on the outcome of a battle (roll a dice!). But in AE I think radar works ALL THE TIME, EVERYTIME, and as a result, the Japs, with all their gruelling training and undisputed nighttime tactical advantage, are no match for the Allied death stars even in the early going. And that's just not right.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 126

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:09:10 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

OK then, for balance, could everyone post an example where the Allied SCTF is the decisive loser in their game(s).

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 127

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:16:47 PM

jimh009

Posts: 368
Joined: 5/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

It amazes me the number of people who are shouting down anyone who dares to say the surface combat results are screwed. They are, simple as, the devs know there is a problem and they are looking into it. Even when the Allies are heavily outnumbered they are coming out on top, time and time again. The examples are there for all to see in this thread.

OK, I know it is a game and you will get non-historic results sometimes....however I think I am correct in saying in real life that the IJN did not lose a single cruiser or destroyer in surface combat until the start of the Guadalcanal campaign. Going off this model, the IJN will be way short of combat ships by the time we hit Aug 42 in the game.

It has to be addressed otherwise the only IJN opponent the Allied "Fanboys" will be able to get a game against will be the AI.

Problem is, I have not seen anything like that in my Dec 8 campaign vs AI. I have smashed few TFs that are unloading, which should be how it is. AI has done same to me. But I have not seen anything you describe and I am into July 42. Surface combats I had vs other SCTF had mostly ended as best draw for me.

Ditto for me. Only time I've massacred Jap TF's is when they have been unloading. Other combat between more or less equal surface combat TF's has ended up a draw, usually.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 128

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:17:13 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Many examples of unusual results reported here involve large surface fleets getting clobbered by numerically inferior forces. While playing the game I got the impression that each ship that is fired upon gets the opportunity to return fire. Could it be that this "rule" is the reason for some skewed results?

In my recent game against the Allied AI I had a night engagement between my 25 ship strong surface fleet (BB's, CA's, CL's, DD's) and a small invasion fleet (2 DD's, 2 AP's). The battle was very lopsided until I finally began hitting the 2 DD's. Even though I ultimately "won", many of my ships took heavy damage. The early rounds of the engagement often looked like this:

- BB misses DD, DD fires back and hits (little damage due to armor)
- CA misses SAME DD, DD fires back and hits (little damage due to armor)
- DD misses SAME DD, DD fires back and hits (moderate damage)
- another DD misses SAME DD, DD fires back and hits (heavy damage)
- and so on

So could it be that a smaller surface force has no firepower disadvantage in comparison to a larger one (apart from differences in ship class) because the current ruleset allows to return every salvo that is received?

That is an interesting post. That indeed could explain some situations.
Like i said it is my opinion that the Allied - Japanese unbalance some are seeing is just a part of a broad problem.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 129

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:18:18 PM

romanovich

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

It amazes me the number of people who are shouting down anyone who dares to say the surface combat results are screwed. They are, simple as, the devs know there is a problem and they are looking into it. Even when the Allies are heavily outnumbered they are coming out on top, time and time again. The examples are there for all to see in this thread.

OK, I know it is a game and you will get non-historic results sometimes....however I think I am correct in saying in real life that the IJN did not lose a single cruiser or destroyer in surface combat until the start of the Guadalcanal campaign. Going off this model, the IJN will be way short of combat ships by the time we hit Aug 42 in the game.

It has to be addressed otherwise the only IJN opponent the Allied "Fanboys" will be able to get a game against will be the AI.

Second that. It's a game, people. Because some of us are advocating for leveling the playing field, we are not historic revisionists or traitors. We all will tend to agree that AE is "the greatest wargame ever produced", Scott_USN, but it would help the GAME aspect, if both sides have a chance to compete. That's not "nonsensical stupidity", Sheytan. Have you played the Jap side? Wanna give it a try against me as the Allies in a PBEM with the current game machine settings?

Let's take the emotions out of this one and give the devs a chance to make this a playable GAME.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 130

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:26:15 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

OK then, for balance, could everyone post an example where the Allied SCTF is the decisive loser in their game(s).

Ok, here's one ... from report submitted by AE player:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 114,138, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai, Shell hits 3
CL Tenryu
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 14
CL Yubari
E Yunagi

Allied Ships
DD Bagley, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
DD Blue, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Helm, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Henley, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
DMS Zane, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
DMS Trevor, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
AP Hunter Liggett, Shell hits 25, and is sunk
AP American Legion, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP Fuller, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AP McCawley, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
AP Henderson, Shell hits 18, and is sunk
AP President Jackson, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP President Adams, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
AP President Hayes, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AP President Monroe, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AP Crescent City, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
AP Heywood, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
AKA Bellatrix, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
AKA Libra, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
AKA Fomalhaut, Shell hits 20, and is sunk
AKA Betelgeuse, Shell hits 8, and is sunk
AKA Alhena, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 131

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:26:26 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

OK, I know it is a game and you will get non-historic results sometimes....however I think I am correct in saying in real life that the IJN did not lose a single cruiser or destroyer in surface combat until the start of the Guadalcanal campaign. Going off this model, the IJN will be way short of combat ships by the time we hit Aug 42 in the game.

Had the Japanese used their forces in the way they frequently are in game, they'd have lost many more ships.

Dec. 11th DD sunk by surface fire.

quote:

Early on the morning of December 11, the garrison, with the support of the four remaining Wildcats, repulsed the first Japanese landing attempt by the South Seas Force, which included the light cruisers Yubari, Tenry�, and Tatsuta; the destroyers Yayoi, Mutsuki, Kisaragi, Hayate, Oite, and Asanagi; two old Momi class destroyers converted to patrol boats (Patrol Boat No. 32 and Patrol Boat No. 33), and two troop transport ships containing 450 Special Naval Landing Force troops.

The U.S. Marines fired at the invasion fleet with their six 5-inch (127 mm) coastal artillery guns. Major Devereux, the Marine commander under Cunningham, ordered the gunners to hold their fire until the enemy moved within range of the coastal defenses. �Battery L� commanded by Sergeant Henry Bedell on Peale islet succeeded in sinking the Hayate at a distance of 4000 yards with at least two direct hits to her magazines, causing her to explode and sink within two minutes, in full view of the defenders on shore. Yubari's superstructure was hit eleven times. The four Wildcats also succeeded in sinking another destroyer, Kisaragi, by dropping a bomb on her stern where the depth charges were stored. Both Japanese destroyers were lost with all hands, with Hayate becoming the first Japanese surface warship to be sunk during World War II. The Japanese force withdrew before landing. This was the first Japanese defeat of the war.

Four days in and already the Invincible Japanese Navy is showing signs of weakness.

quote:

It has to be addressed otherwise the only IJN opponent the Allied "Fanboys" will be able to get a game against will be the AI.

Not that I'm interested in PBEM anyway, but who wants to play against someone that is only satisfied when pummelling the defenseless and then quits as soon as the tables turn?

_____________________________

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 132

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 8:35:11 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
That is an interesting post. That indeed could explain some situations.
Like i said it is my opinion that the Allied - Japanese unbalance some are seeing is just a part of a broad problem.

I've noticed that BBs seem to be underperforming for both sides but I haven't had enough battles to determine if there really is a problem.

What I don't like is the claim that this is a pro-Allied problem because that has not shown up at all in my game.

If there is an error in the code I highly doubt it's partial to one side or the other. It may be partial to the AI.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 133

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:03:39 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

You took my quote out of context, its pretty clear what I meant. I do not want to play WITP2. I want to play Admirals Edition. IF this "was" WITP2 I would not have purchased it.

I also appoligise if I offended anyone, but I think people who enjoy playing the allied side see the changes in AE as novel and refreshing after what was experienced in WITP. I will conceed tweeking needs to be done, perhaps the problem is radar, and needs a crew skill check for example, no idea how they address it, but the game has also become much more difficult for the allied player in relation to early portage assets, port size and unloading limits, etc etc. Play the allies some time if you think it is some sort of easy mode. I can assure you it isnt. BTW my full quote is below, I also conceed I could have chosen other words to express the same thing.

"You want to recreate the nonsensical stupidity that existed with WITP in relation to IJ? Dont think thats going to happen."

(in reply to romanovich)

Post #: 134

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:17:15 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Ok, here's one ... from report submitted by AE player:

Extreme ouchies, how many allied APs are there? Japan would have lost half of it's APs in that battle.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 135

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:24:30 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

I took the Coral Sea scenario, grounded the aircraft, sent the carriers home, and held a fight between the gunships near the centre of the map. I learned a number of things:

1. FoW rules!
2. The IJN is mildly superior to the RN and USN. This is mostly due to the 24" torpedoes.
3. Surface combat is bloody!
4. The battles might be too long--a moderate combat power superiority usually gets converted into a massive win. This is not surprising--naval surface combat resolution follows a Lanchester square law, but it looks like the inferior side hangs in too long. (I wrote a paper about 25 years ago on this that examined engagement termination statistics and showed that there is an information collection process involved. A battle continues until the inferior side realises it is losing and bugs out. This realisation is quick in mismatches and slow in nearly balanced affairs.)

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 136

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:30:55 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

@mjk428 - the two DDs lost at Wake were to air attack and coastal batteries - not an Allied ship in sight. Please try to find an IJN warship of DD size or above that was sunk by Allied warships prior to August 42.

As for: "Not that I'm interested in PBEM anyway, but who wants to play against someone that is only satisfied when pummelling the defenseless and then quits as soon as the tables turn?"

What a laughable comment. Any IJN player should expect to see half his fleet sunk by obsolete Britsh and Dutch warships and PT boats and like it or lump it? If I was the IJN player I would quit on the 8th December 41 the way the game stands at the moment.

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 137

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:35:59 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

You are replying to the wrong party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

@mjk428 - the two DDs lost at Wake were to air attack and coastal batteries - not an Allied ship in sight. Please try to find an IJN warship of DD size or above that was sunk by Allied warships prior to August 42.

As for: "Not that I'm interested in PBEM anyway, but who wants to play against someone that is only satisfied when pummelling the defenseless and then quits as soon as the tables turn?"

What a laughable comment. Any IJN player should expect to see half his fleet sunk by obsolete Britsh and Dutch warships and PT boats and like it or lump it? If I was the IJN player I would quit on the 8th December 41 the way the game stands at the moment.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 138

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:40:47 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

My comments were not aimed at you. For some reason the forum software states that you are replying to the last post before the one you post.

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 139

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:44:54 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

Here is a set of two engagements from my current PBEM game. Clearly radar has a significant influence in allowing the allied force to spot the IJN TF and gain suprise in the first engagement, and tactical advantage(read, crossing the T) in the second. Frankly I dont see anything wrong, again perhaps there needs to be a skill check to see if the crews "interpeted" the radar returns properly, other then that whats wrong here, they did use radar correct? Also note the visibility in the first engagement.

As a aside, both the Australia and the Canberra were sunk. Kako was sunk as a result of a magazine explosion in the first salvo she was struck by in the second engagement.

As I mentioned before perhaps a skill check vs crew skill to mitigate its effectiveness, but lets not nerf this too heavily, after all we still have to deal with ahistorical use of IJ torpedo bombers.

EDITED to add the following, apparently Kako didnt sink then, but one turn later.

SBD-3 Dauntless from VS-6 has spotted CA Kako at 112,131
SBD-3 Dauntless from VS-6 has spotted CA Aoba at 112,131
SBD-3 Dauntless from VB-6 has spotted a Mogami class CA at 121,141
OS2U-3 Kingfisher from 1/VO-5 has spotted CA Aoba at 112,131
PC Ch 32 followed by Allied Aircraft at 109,131 near Shortlands
xAK Sakura Maru observes Allied Aircraft at 106,125 near Rabaul
AIRCRAFT LANDING
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
CA Kako sinks....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 114,137, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba, Shell hits 2
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 33, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Furutaka
CA Kako, Shell hits 1

Allied Ships
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CA Canberra, Shell hits 14, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
CLAA San Juan, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Monssen
DD Buchanan
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Selfridge

Reduced visibility due to Rain with 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 7% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 11,000 yards
CA Canberra launches Torpedoes at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
CA Australia launches Torpedoes at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
CL Hobart launches Torpedoes at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
DD Selfridge fires at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
DD Buchanan fires at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
DD Monssen fires at CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Canberra at 6,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Kinugasa at 6,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Canberra at 2,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 2,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CL Hobart at 2,000 yards
CLAA San Juan engages CA Kinugasa at 2,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Jarvis at 2,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Mugford at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Canberra at 4,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Furutaka at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CL Hobart at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CLAA San Juan at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Mugford at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Monssen at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
CA Kako engages CLAA San Juan at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Canberra at 6,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Canberra at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Selfridge at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Monssen at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Kinugasa at 9,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Canberra at 9,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CL Hobart at 9,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CLAA San Juan at 9,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Jarvis at 9,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Buchanan at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Canberra at 11,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Monssen at 11,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Canberra at 12,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 12,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Kinugasa at 12,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Aoba at 12,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages DD Monssen at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Kako at 11,000 yards
CA Australia engages CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
CLAA San Juan engages CA Kinugasa at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Canberra at 9,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Kinugasa at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CLAA San Juan at 9,000 yards
DD Mugford engages CA Kinugasa at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 14,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Canberra at 14,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Canberra at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Hobart at 14,000 yards
Range increases to 17,000 yards
CA Australia engages CA Kinugasa at 17,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CLAA San Juan at 17,000 yards
Range increases to 22,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Canberra at 22,000 yards
CA Australia engages CA Kinugasa at 22,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Kinugasa at 22,000 yards
Range increases to 27,000 yards
CA Canberra engages CA Kako at 27,000 yards
CA Kako engages CA Australia at 27,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Canberra at 27,000 yards
Range increases to 30,000 yards
CA Australia engages CA Kinugasa at 30,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CLAA San Juan at 30,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Selfridge at 30,000 yards
Range increases to 32,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Canberra at 32,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 32,000 yards
Range increases to 35,000 yards
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 114,137, Range 17,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Japanese Ships
CA Aoba, Shell hits 17
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 3
CA Kako, Shell hits 4, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Australia, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Hobart, Shell hits 1
DD Monssen
DD Buchanan
DD Mugford
DD Jarvis
DD Selfridge

Reduced visibility due to Rain
Maximum visibility in Rain: 28,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 35,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 17,000 yards
Scott, N. crosses the 'T'
CA Kako engages CA Australia at 17,000 yards
CA Kako engages DD Selfridge at 17,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages DD Jarvis at 17,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages DD Mugford at 17,000 yards
CA Kako engages DD Buchanan at 17,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
CA Kako sunk by CA Australia at 10,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 10,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 10,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages DD Monssen at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 8,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 8,000 yards
DD Mugford engages CA Aoba at 8,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Buchanan at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 11,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Aoba at 11,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 11,000 yards
Range increases to 14,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Hobart at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Buchanan at 14,000 yards
Range increases to 17,000 yards
CA Australia engages CA Aoba at 17,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 17,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 17,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Furutaka at 17,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Aoba at 17,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Selfridge at 17,000 yards
Range closes to 16,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 16,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 15,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CA Australia at 15,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CL Hobart at 15,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Jarvis at 15,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 15,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 14,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Aoba at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Selfridge at 14,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages DD Jarvis at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 14,000 yards
Range closes to 12,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 12,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Aoba at 12,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Buchanan at 12,000 yards
Mikawa, G. orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Hobart at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Selfridge at 9,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages CA Aoba at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Mugford at 9,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 14,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Selfridge at 14,000 yards
CA Aoba engages DD Monssen at 14,000 yards
Range increases to 19,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 19,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Hobart at 19,000 yards
Range increases to 25,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages CA Australia at 25,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CA Aoba at 25,000 yards
Range increases to 31,000 yards
Task forces break off...

< Message edited by Sheytan -- 8/16/2009 11:57:56 PM >

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 140

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 9:55:17 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

@mjk428 - the two DDs lost at Wake were to air attack and coastal batteries - not an Allied ship in sight. Please try to find an IJN warship of DD size or above that was sunk by Allied warships prior to August 42.

As for: "Not that I'm interested in PBEM anyway, but who wants to play against someone that is only satisfied when pummelling the defenseless and then quits as soon as the tables turn?"

What a laughable comment. Any IJN player should expect to see half his fleet sunk by obsolete Britsh and Dutch warships and PT boats and like it or lump it? If I was the IJN player I would quit on the 8th December 41 the way the game stands at the moment.

You're missing the point. Six 5 inch-guns and the remnants of a fighter squadron repulsed an invasion fleet 4 days into the War in the Pacific. I've never gotten results like that in any of my games.

It's an odd standard you've created. How many opportunities were there prior to August '42 for the Allies to sink IJN ships in surface actions? Do you think there was something special about them that made them unsinkable? Because the failed invasion of Wake proves they could be sunk easily enough when fortune turned against them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 141

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:29:14 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Ok, here's one ... from report submitted by AE player:

Extreme ouchies, how many allied APs are there? Japan would have lost half of it's APs in that battle.

Yeah that one got my attention.

BTW, we are working on this area. For AE, we did add in what we now call some "wipe out" code. The idea was to enable more drastic results than we saw in stock, where a huge surface force could surprise a large unescorted merchant force unloading and only get 0-4 of the merchants before they got away. For most of the last year, this code has been working fine, but seems like in the last few builds, it got "adjusted" a bit too much in the extreme direction. We are readjusting it, and adding in some more improvements. Results are looking much better so far. We will not be going back to stock, because we are trying to accomplish some specific improvements, but we will be tweaking our improvements to get them to work the way we think they should!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 142

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:43:12 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

What about US Cl gunfire? Are their excellent hit rates are going to be toned down? A single US Cl in Dec '41 can wreck IJN battleships with ease. They just keep being hit with countless salvos- those Cls are scoring hits with ease from 20000 yards, 10000yds or 2000yds- night and day, all weather conditions- what is wrong???

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 143

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:45:19 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

What about US Cl gunfire? Are their excellent hit rates are going to be toned down? A single US Cl in Dec '41 can wreck IJN battleships with ease. They just keep being hit with countless salvos- those Cls are scoring hits with ease from 20000 yards, 10000yds or 2000yds- night and day, all weather conditions- what is wrong???

Interestingly these accuracy figures for the guns I've checked are all the same as stock (WITP) - so not sure we will change those - we haven't yet. Somethings change, somethings stay the same.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 144

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:53:18 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

What about US Cl gunfire? Are their excellent hit rates are going to be toned down? A single US Cl in Dec '41 can wreck IJN battleships with ease. They just keep being hit with countless salvos- those Cls are scoring hits with ease from 20000 yards, 10000yds or 2000yds- night and day, all weather conditions- what is wrong???

Interestingly these accuracy figures for the guns I've checked are all the same as stock (WITP) - so not sure we will change those - we haven't yet. Somethings change, somethings stay the same.

Don't get me wrong, I like new combat model very much... but... those Cls are nearly impossible to hit, and in 3 engagements they just smashed superior IJN forces at night... just wrecked the hell out of them taking only a few hits. So I sent BBs to hunt them down- they caught the Cl (Boise) on daylight- and she just smashed those BBs from 20000yds with some kind of 6" machinegun fire. And now, I am a bit puzzled, because this happens every time I meet US Cl. they just "machinegun" everything. And they smash BBs from 20000yds at daylight. I can post a save if that happens again... but I'm now somewhat short of BBs, CAs and Cls- all been smashed up or sunk by a few Cls...

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 145

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:56:45 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

We're certainly looking at the accuracy ratings ... like 200 for US 5"/38 ... but as I said, these all seem to be matching stock.

Interestingly I went back and tested a bunch of surface battles in stock and compared results to AE ... and even to my surprise the results were much closer than I expected. I had the impression that our results were more different than testing has born out. Sure the "wipe out" code is new, but basic battles between similar sized groups of warships are producing the same range of results.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 146

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 10:59:22 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Don't get me wrong, I like new combat model very much... but... those Cls are nearly impossible to hit, and in 3 engagements they just smashed superior IJN forces at night... just wrecked the hell out of them taking only a few hits. So I sent BBs to hunt them down- they caught the Cl (Boise) on daylight- and she just smashed those BBs from 20000yds with some kind of 6" machinegun fire. And now, I am a bit puzzled, because this happens every time I meet US Cl. they just "machinegun" everything. And they smash BBs from 20000yds at daylight. I can post a save if that happens again... but I'm now somewhat short of BBs, CAs and Cls- all been smashed up or sunk by a few Cls...

Well, Boise was designed to be "machinegun" like but I'm thinking even with her very high ROF she hits a wee bit too often. This might be a result of one ship getting shots on all ships that fire on it though. How did Boise kill BBs? Tell me you didn't send some Kongos after her and they engaged at 1000 yards to get MG'd up by Boise at night....

Kongos have 200mm belt armor which happens to be a Brooklyn's main gun penetration maximum.

< Message edited by Iridium -- 8/16/2009 11:03:23 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 147

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 11:04:14 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

In stock we used to call Boise a "BB" herself .. but that was because of her extra (typo provided) armor. At least that aspect has been addressed.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 148

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 11:06:49 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

Well, I really don't know what is happenning... maybe I just got a very bad luck... but it is strange to me. As I said... that happened every time IJN SC met US Cl... and when 4 IJN CAs are unable to hit Cl at 4000yds and 2000yds at night, while that single Cl is saturating all those CAs with devastating and accurate fire... and that CAs are even not surprised... and it is not year '44 then a big questionmark shows up over my head

But if its just my bad luck, you can just ignore me... maybe I'm not to objective any more after such string of defeats...

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 149

RE: Ridiculous Surface Combat Result - 8/16/2009 11:08:50 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku
A single US Cl in Dec '41 can wreck IJN battleships with ease. They just keep being hit with countless salvos- those Cls are scoring hits with ease from 20000 yards, 10000yds or 2000yds- night and day, all weather conditions- what is wrong???

BBs are so screwed in this game. They were in WITP, they still are now.

Please make them better, heavy guns really were not so inaccurate that cruisers dished out more pain. Or there wouldn't be any battleships in history...

_____________________________