Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

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 Combat - What Am I missing here?

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 >> Surface Combat - What Am I missing here?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:10:41 AM

davbaker

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

I would have thought this was a pretty even engamement, maybe as I knew it would be at night and I had radar slight advantage to me.

From watching the replay and looking at the log:

The allies spot the Japanese at 11,000 yards on Radar.
All 4 british Royal Sovereign Ships have SS & AS Radar so do 2 criusers and 1 destroyer.

Good XP and good captains.

They dont open fire, close to 2,000 yards and let the Japanese Visually spot and commence pulverising them with their big guns.
When they do return fire its with their 4".

They get one or two hits with big guns before breaking off.
The high hits on Hyuga were from 20mm....

What I'm confused about is why didnt they open fire with first radar contact at 11,000 yards, or isnt that the way it works?

The eventual outcome was that I lost all 4 BB as I set Port Blair as home port and he was Bombarding Blair so I kept running into his TF and he sank me piecemeal.

Bonus was Hermes & Invincible caught him on run home and so far I've sank 2 of his BB with some more to follow hopefully....

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Blair at 46,58, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu
BB Yamashiro
BB Hyuga, Shell hits 30, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Aoba
CA Furutaka
DD Kazegumo
DD Hamakaze
DD Shigure, Shell hits 1
DD Ayanami
DD Oboro, Shell hits 1, on fire

Allied Ships
BB Revenge, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
BB Royal Sovereign, Shell hits 16, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Ramillies, Shell hits 1
BB Resolution, Shell hits 5, on fire
CL Mauritius
CL Glasgow
DD Stronghold
DD Tenedos
DD Thracian
DD Norman, Shell hits 1

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Resolution at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Revenge at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Glasgow at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages DD Norman at 2,000 yards
DD Shigure engages BB Revenge at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages DD Stronghold at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Ramillies engages BB Hyuga at 2,000 yards
BB Mutsu engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Hyuga at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Glasgow at 2,000 yards
DD Oboro engages CL Mauritius at 2,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages DD Norman at 2,000 yards
DD Shigure engages DD Tenedos at 2,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Hamakaze at 2,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Resolution engages BB Hyuga at 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 5,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 5,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Hyuga at 5,000 yards
CL Glasgow engages CA Aoba at 5,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Oboro at 5,000 yards
DD Norman engages DD Ayanami at 5,000 yards
DD Shigure engages DD Thracian at 5,000 yards
DD Hamakaze engages DD Tenedos at 5,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Resolution at 6,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 6,000 yards
BB Revenge engages BB Mutsu at 6,000 yards
CA Furutaka engages BB Revenge at 6,000 yards
CA Aoba engages CL Glasgow at 6,000 yards
DD Oboro engages DD Tenedos at 6,000 yards
DD Ayanami engages DD Stronghold at 6,000 yards
DD Thracian engages DD Oboro at 6,000 yards
DD Tenedos engages DD Hamakaze at 6,000 yards
DD Kazegumo engages DD Stronghold at 6,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Post #: 1

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:19:20 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards

You cannot shoot what you cannot see even when detected by radar.

But they did shoot at each other up to 6k yards afterwards. Probably directing fire to the muzzle flashes on the other side.

< Message edited by jomni -- 9/7/2010 7:21:57 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to davbaker)

Post #: 2

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 8:17:05 AM

witpqs

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

IIRC they made an adjustment so that early in the war they have to make visual contact to open fire, and as the war goes on (and radar is more competently used and understood) they can open fire at longer and longer ranges.

Prior to the adjustment there were complaints that Allied navies were opening fire way beyond visual range early in the war with primitive radar sets which were barely trusted and partially understood IRL. The Allies had a 1943-44-45 advantage in 1942.

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 3

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 9:47:51 AM

davbaker

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

I'm reading about SG radar fitted to a crude CIC in a US destroyer in Dec 42 that sounds pretty amazing.
i.e. PPI scope showing paint of area , able to distingiush land and ships and DRT showing plot of the ships movement.

(OT the book South Pacific Destroyer - Russell Crenshaw Jr one of the best I've read heaps of details, names all Ships by full designation down to small tugs etc.)

i.e. way beyond anything I'd previously thought they had in World war II.

Now granted the poms pretty much invented radar and had it fitted as standard pretty early on I would have thought it would have made more of an impact.

Maybe it's just me getting enthusiastic after reading this book.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 4

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 1:37:14 PM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

Dav

Although radar defected the enemy, I have never seen a fight above visual spotting range at night. Best guess why the fight started at 2K yards. There was no surprise, so it boiled down to your basic barroom brawl. The damage pattern on Empire ships suggests an ultra aggressive allied commander targeted all his firpower on one ship to best ensure that it sunk. The empire spread its fire out more in a classic defensive posture to reduce the overall effectiveness of the allied TF

As to experience, there is no point in the early or mid game where I would say that the major allied fleets are comparable in experience. That is an empire advantage. As to the eveness of the armaments, I disagree to a small degree, I think there was a slight advantage to the empire. Their torpedoe warfare is far better, and 2 CA's much more readily penetrate most BB armor moreso than the two old CL's. The rest IMHO is the randomness of the combat engine.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to davbaker)

Post #: 5

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 3:09:07 PM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

davbaker
what date was the battle?

Tigercub

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 6

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 3:52:09 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well. Perhaps they should get a radar bonus from the start. We are talking about one year after the battle of Matapan (3-41). Of all the combatant in the Pacific war in 1942, the Brits had the experience with radar and knew how to take advantage of it. It is not so much the firing range but the situational bonus that radar gave.

As for your fight, it is just one fight. You had a bad day.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 7

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 5:02:46 PM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 8

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 5:17:29 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.

I've never analyzed it, but I think rate-of-fire has a lot to do with BB battle outcomes. The IJN seems ot do very well in that regard. And one reason the USS Boise does so well. Once the North Carolina and the New Jersey and later classes get there the BB battles can be slaughters.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 9

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 5:57:25 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well. Perhaps they should get a radar bonus from the start. We are talking about one year after the battle of Matapan (3-41). Of all the combatant in the Pacific war in 1942, the Brits had the experience with radar and knew how to take advantage of it. It is not so much the firing range but the situational bonus that radar gave.

Not always. Very early in my CG I had PoW get in a one-on-one fight with Hyuga, and the RN ship blew her out of the water with barely a scratch. The escorts for each BB were about even in firepower; IIRC PoW had two CL's and 4 DD's, and Hyuga was escorting Chiyoda with a CL and 5 DD's. The seaplane carrier got hit as well, split off the escorting ships in a seperate TF, and PoW then found and sank her as well.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 10

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 6:41:51 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Agree w/ moose und squirrel. Rof makes a huge difference. Iirc the Brit 15/42s and the USN 14s and old 16/45s have a rof of 1. The rest are rof 2.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 11

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:00:18 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well ...

Neither have mine, but consider what happened to the WW I-era Hood after it was hit by a salvo from the brand new Bismark.

I've never analyzed it, but I think rate-of-fire has a lot to do with BB battle outcomes. The IJN seems ot do very well in that regard. And one reason the USS Boise does so well. Once the North Carolina and the New Jersey and later classes get there the BB battles can be slaughters.

Thats a good point. I would not suspect any of the Japanese BBs to have much over the Brits in ROF but don't really have a clue. I know that the American Brooklyns and Clevelands seem to do very well over the Japanese treaty cruiser so that is probably the point. I do know that all of the old BBs (both sides) has slow turrets and older fire control systems. They just were not suited for close-in night battles as it was difficult for them to track in the frequent course changes involved in a knife fight. I really look to take CAs and Cls into night fights and leave the BBs to daylight or bombardment.

My question is does anyone know if the ROF of the American BBs change with the major conversions that they can undergo in 1943? Seems like they would be a lot better after these major overhauls ( like four months in the yard).

< Message edited by crsutton -- 9/7/2010 7:02:19 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 12

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:21:34 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 28% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 28% moonlight: 2,000 yards

You cannot shoot what you cannot see even when detected by radar.

But they did shoot at each other up to 6k yards afterwards. Probably directing fire to the muzzle flashes on the other side.

This argument of you can't shoot at what you can't see is rubbish,please read Battle of North Cape as an example.This action took place at night,in a snow storm with initial contact using radar at 35,000 yds,and the ships opened fire at over 11,000 yds.What the game recreates as fighting at 2,000 yds is crap,maybe thats ok for destroyers closing to launch torpedeos,but to have Battleships closing to 2,000 yds before opening fire is simply rediculous and stupid.

Battle of North Cape

On Christmas Day 1943, Scharnhorst and several destroyers, under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Erich Bey, put to sea with the purpose of attacking the Russia-bound Arctic convoys JW 55B and RA 55A north of Norway. Unfortunately for the Germans, their orders had been decoded by the British codebreakers and the Admiralty were able to direct their forces to intercept. The next day, in heavy weather and unable to locate the convoy, Bey detached the destroyers and sent them south, leaving Scharnhorst alone. Less than two hours later, the ship encountered the convoy's escort force of the cruisers HMS Belfast, Norfolk, and Sheffield. Belfast had picked up Scharnhorst at 08:40 and 35,000 yd (32,000 m) using her Type 273 radar and by 09:41, Sheffield had made visual contact. Under cover of snow, the British cruisers opened fire. Belfast attempted to illuminate Scharnhorst with starshell, but was unsuccessful. Norfolk, however, opened fire using her radar to spot the fall of shot and scored two hits. One of these demolished Scharnhorst's main radar aerial, disabling the set and leaving her unable to return accurate fire in low visibility.
In order to try to get around the cruisers to the convoy, Bey ordered Scharnhorst to take a southeast course away from the cruisers. In the late afternoon, the convoy's covering force � including the British battleship HMS Duke of York � made contact and opened fire at 16:51 and at a range of 11,950 yards

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 13

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:36:13 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Doesn't the very article you are citing mention visual contact before it mentions any fire being exchanged in the initial battle ? Note also that this is in late 43' so we can expect radar to be used to good effect, while we do not know the date of the battle in the OP.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 14

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:44:21 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Yes Sheffield closed to visual range,and using her radio directed the fire on to the target for the other ships of the squadron,there are other earlier war cases where by British ships engaged enemy ships at over 11,000 using radar,then again Britains World War 2 experience started in 1939 and not like America & Japan who's war really started after Pearl Harbour.

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 15

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:45:18 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

"Christmas Day 1943" You are talking the beginning of 1944. Light years away from mid 1942 in terms of radar and radar gunnery.

Matapan might be a better example where the Brits were aware of the Italians but did not shoot until they made eye contact. But radar did give them the tactical jump. You can consider the Battle of Empress Agusta bay in November 1943 where 4 modern American light crusiers and supporting DDs fired an estimated 4,000 six inch and 5 inch rounds (most, if not all of the six inch were radar directed) and acheived an estimated "20" hits overall. They still had a few kinks to work out.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 16

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 7:53:46 PM

hellfirejet

Posts: 1052
Joined: 12/16/2008
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Type 273

Type
Aerial Outfit
Peak Power (kW)
Frequency (MHz)
Wavelength (mm)
In service

273
AQN
90
2,997
100
1941
"Centimetric Mark IV" target indication set. This set was based on the Type 271, but was intended for major warships of cruiser and battleship size. It used side-by-side 3 feet wide cheese antennas that were carried in a distinctive protective perspex "lantern". In the Battle of the North Cape, HMS Duke of York identified the target of Scharnhorst at 35,000 yards using her Type 273 set

In service 1941

_____________________________

Regards,
Graham.

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction! Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 17

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 8:37:15 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

Which does not mean that there was much experience with using radar for gunnery control in 41'. I believe code was actually added to the game in one of the patches so that radar becomes more and more useful to the Allies the later the date to model this improvement in experience.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 18

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/7/2010 11:23:38 PM

davbaker

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Thanks for all the info guys.

Battle was April'42 sorry for not posting that earlier.

To clarify my original thinking, Britain had Radar equippped ships and had been using them for some time.
In my battle they detected the Japanses TF at 11,000 yards then were 'suprised' at 2,000 yards.
To watch the replay is painful.
Hyuga proceeds to pound all four of the Brit BB's with no return fire from them for quite some time.

I can understand slow ROF but no fire at all was hard to watch

When they opened up with the 20mm after waiting for some 15" firing I almost cried.

No biggie, just another battle lost heh. Good to get others understanding and experience in-game though.

Thanks

Dave

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 19

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 12:47:13 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: davbaker

In my battle they detected the Japanses TF at 11,000 yards then were 'suprised' at 2,000 yards.
To watch the replay is painful.
Hyuga proceeds to pound all four of the Brit BB's with no return fire from them for quite some time.

Sounds almost like Tassaforonga: the US "sees" the japs on radar, even launches torps before the japs are aware of them, but the second the US opens fire, the japs promptly long lance their way to victory. A result that I am sure would cause complaints were it to happen in the game.

(in reply to davbaker)

Post #: 20

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 3:11:27 AM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Resolution at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Ramillies at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Royal Sovereign at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages BB Revenge at 2,000 yards
BB Hyuga engages CL Glasgow at 2,000 yards

The information we don't have, here, is when the Japanese detected the Brits.

Ok... so the allies detected the Japs on radar at 11k. Becauseit's April '42, shooting via radar in the midst of a thunderstorm and a raging sea was not a tactic that was effective, and the Brits didn't want to give away their position via gunfire shell flash shooting blanks at ghosts on a newfangled radar thingamajig.

When did the Japs spot the Brits. If it was anything above 2k... then all that "I saw em on radar first" doesn't really matter (if, indeed, that is what happened. remember, we don't know when the Japs spotted the Brits).

Suppose the Japanese detected the Brits at 4k yards.... and it was a hotshot Japanese set of eyes on the Hyuga that spotted the Brit BB's *first*, for whatever reason might exist. Perhaps a lightning bolt (thunderstorms, remember) struck near the Resolution that "lit it up for all the Japs to see," and as a result, the Hyuga got off a devastating first salvo.... perhaps the Japs were in the right place in relation to the T-storm, that allows the Japs to see the Brits but the Brits not see the Japs... and as such.... the Hyuga ran the gamut on all four BB's.

Throw in an upset sea due to the T-storm, and the lighting flashes ruining the eyesight of everyone... and that same hotshot pair of eyes on the Hyuga got range and direction
Boom. The Brits just had all their BB's lit up, and while the Brits knew just about where the Japs were, they didn't fire because they weren't sure enough.

So who was the commander of the Brit and what were his skills?

Even if his naval skill was excellent - perhaps the fact that he just saw one of his BB's and a CL turn into a torch - and was getting "not 100% accurate information" on the size and types of ships in the Japs TF, perhaps he thought he was outnumbered, made a bad decision on "how or when" to retreat, called for some harassing fire to cover the retreat (explaining why they didn't do much damage to the Brits), and got the other ships tagged while retreating.

Or perhaps the Brit commander made a mistake and thought the Japs were heavily outnumbered, and gave commands that were the "wrong" ones to give, and his ships got tagged before doing anything...

Or perhaps, the Jap commander just got the better on the Brits and "won" this battle.

----

The result I see here, given all the variables, is nothing that I find "extraordinary".

< Message edited by AcePylut -- 9/8/2010 3:14:59 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 21

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 3:44:11 AM

witpqs

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

It seems very strange that, when itself previously detected, one ship can fire on five enemy ships with no return fire.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 22

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:07:48 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It seems very strange that, when itself previously detected, one ship can fire on five enemy ships with no return fire.

I would never try to engage any IJN BB's with Allied BB's, unless you have 3 on 1 or better. Even then, expect to lose one of your 3 and have another damaged.

I've seen way too many IJN super battleships in this game. I play vs AI, and the AI used to (prior to patch 3 anyway) send small surface forces to PH (about once every 2 months.) I saw maybe a dozen of these examples. I'd spot them two days out, and be ready for them (subs in their path, and a perfectly made surface force waiting for them.) I'd have 6-8 of the old BB's vs 1 or 2 IJN BB's, a CA and 2 DD's. I'd lose one BB every time (2 a few times) and have two more in the shop for months. In return, I'd moderately damage one BB and sink a DD. That happend probably 10 of the 12 examples. Some of my examples I had NC, WA and SD in the mix. At least they could withstand a belt hit every once in a while.

It's very painful to watch the animations. Every "round" of combat, the IJN BB will get one or more penetrating hits on Allied BB's. Probably every 5th "round" of combat would I see a penetrating hit on an IJN BB. Even with superior numbers and superior prior spotting intelligence.

The ops example is very similar. He damaged one or two and was lucky to have CV support to finish them off. Otherwise, the IJN would have only had damage to repair.

I've seen examples where the Allies get away fairly one sided. But, the IJN wins somewhere between 75% and 90% of the time. 43 isn't better. I don't know if 44 or 45 changes things. Maybe by then, the Allies gain the surface domination they enjoyed in the actual war after 42.

In my latest restart, I have completely avoided surface fights against IJN BB's, so I don't know if things are different with patch 4.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 23

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 4:42:04 AM

davbaker

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

It's almost as if the Brits were getting 'radar' detects (which dont allow actual shooting) right up until 2,000 yards but still didnt kick over to actual 'spotted' until they had been fired on.

There is a query/bug with Air radar in the Tech section with detecting raids and a fall through condition with 'spotted' and 'radar' detection not working as it should. Wonder if this is something similar?

Then again maybe I'm just a sore loser looking for excuses ...

heh

grumble, damn Jap BB, grumble

p.s. After my intial success sinking 2 BB with carriers he brough up some fleet carriers from Singers that I hadnt known were there and sunk Hermes and mortally wounded Formidable.

Talk about adding insult to injury!

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 24

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 12:19:45 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
It seems like the Brits always get the poor end of the stick. My old British BBs have not fared too well. Perhaps they should get a radar bonus from the start. We are talking about one year after the battle of Matapan (3-41). Of all the combatant in the Pacific war in 1942, the Brits had the experience with radar and knew how to take advantage of it. It is not so much the firing range but the situational bonus that radar gave.

Qualitatively, the Japanese are at a minimum equal and often superior to British ships. Old R's are not exactly the A-team.

The experience of British surface ships and British surface commanders is inferior to the Japanese, especially at night.

Which is crazy. BB Warspite was, by 1942, a war hero and veteran of multiple engagements, including ones at night where she acquitted herself nobly. BB Mutsu, on the other hand, fired four shells from her main armament in the entire war and yet somehow is rated as more experienced than Warspite.

I think if you ramped up British surface combat ship experience scores to the 70 mark, and even higher for some (I'd give Warspite 80/80 myself, she probably the most battlehardened capital ship in the world by 1942), and gave them some decent captains with high naval scores, they'd perform much closer to their capability. Granted, this should not apply to British CVs and CV squadrons.

I think radar is influenced by ship experience/captain experience?

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 25

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 12:48:45 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

Historically the Allies prefered to engage the IJN BBs with aircraft even in 1945. i.e. Yamato sortie was engaged by aircraft when American BBs where close to the beachead on Okinawa.

Btw in 1944-45 Vs the AI USA BBs engage with radar.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 26

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 12:56:28 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200
Historically the Allies prefered to engage the IJN BBs with aircraft even in 1945. i.e. Yamato sortie was engaged by aircraft when American BBs where close to the beachead on Okinawa.

A BB engagement was considered - but why risk it when you had that sort of aerial firepower. It'd practically be Queensberry Rules warfare if they accepted a battleship duel without all those unfair aircraft around

.

_____________________________

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 27

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 1:32:17 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Historically the Allies prefered to engage the IJN BBs with aircraft even in 1945. i.e. Yamato sortie was engaged by aircraft when American BBs where close to the beachead on Okinawa.

Btw in 1944-45 Vs the AI USA BBs engage with radar.

I guess this would be true for everyone when you�ve got lots of aircraft around that can sink such a beast without you having to risk tens of thousand sailors plus millions of $ for each BB... sinking such a BB for the loss of one or two dozen aircraft is a big victory, sinking such a BB for the loss of one or two BBs yourselve is rather a tragedy in real life...

same goes for the game of course, I couldn�t think of sending in a BB to counter another BB if I would be sure to have 200 torp bombers attacking instead...

_____________________________

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 28

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 2:12:06 PM

chesmart

Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline

IIRC in the battle of phlippine sea a surface engagment was evaded because Adm Lee did not think his forces would win in a night engagment.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 29

RE: Surface Combat - What Am I missing here? - 9/8/2010 2:58:54 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Sounds almost like Tassaforonga: the US "sees" the japs on radar, even launches torps before the japs are aware of them, but the second the US opens fire, the japs promptly long lance their way to victory. A result that I am sure would cause complaints were it to happen in the game.

TOO Funny!!

Worse, I agree 100%.